The paramount consideration in child custody disputes is the welfare and stability of the child, outweighing parental rights.

CAV Order

1. Heard.

2. This instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/father of the child/defendant No.2 under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act , 1890 (henceforth referred to as “the Act, 1890”) challenging the judgment dated 30.09.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (CG) in Miscellaneous Civil Case No.08/2018, whereby the custody of child (respondent No.2) has been ordered to be kept with the mother/respondent No.1 herein and the appellant/father has been granted visiting right.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that, the appellant/father filed an application under Section 25 read with Section 7 of the Act, 1890 stating inter alia that his marriage was solemnized with respondent No.1 on 06.07.2013 as per Hindu customs and rituals and they have been blessed with male child namely; Yashasvi Yadav (respondent No.2) on 28.07.2015. It has been averred by the appellant in his application that, immediately after the marriage, respondent No.1 had started misbehaving with the parents and relatives of the appellant and even she did not take care of the minor child/respondent No.2. On 28.01.2018, respondent No.1 pressurized appellant to leave her at her parental place, then he made to understand her that after coming from duty, he would leave her there, despite that, she went to her parental place along with minor child without informing parents of the appellant, as appellant was on his duty at that time. The appellant and his family members went to the parental place of respondent No.1 to bring her back, but her family members threatened them and respondent No.1 refused to return with the appellant. It has further been averred that respondent No.1 is short tempered and whenever appellant and his parents wanted to meet minor child/respondent No.2, then, respondent No.1 did not let them to meet the minor child. It is further pleading of the appellant that respondent No.1/mother has no source of income and her parents are also old aged and sick persons, therefore, she has filed maintenance application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself and her son, which also shows that she is incapable of maintaining the child. As such, appellant by filing application sought relief that he be appointed guardian of their minor son -Yashasvi Yadav (respondent No.2) and custody of the child be granted to him.

4. Respondent No.1/non-applicant/mother- Roshni Yadav filed her reply stating inter alia that after few days of their marriage, parents of appellant and his sister started harassing her physically and mentally on demand of dowry as they were not satisfied with the quality of articles received in the marriage. After birth of their child, neither they took care of her nor her child, rather, they used to deprive her child from milk and other nutritious diet. Parents of the appellant used to scold her in trivial issues. On 28.01.2018, when appellant had gone on his duty, then father of the appellant assaulted her and also snatched her mobile, thereafter he ousted her along with minor child, therefore, she went to the house of neighbour namely; Paremeshwar @ Tillu Kesharwani, where she called her brother and went to her parental place with him. It has further been averred by respondent No.1 that she has not left company of appellant with own, rather, she was compelled to do the same, therefore, she is residing with her son along with her parents, but appellant is not taking care of them, even he has also not come to meet respondent No.2 when he was admitted in hospital for his treatmen