J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

1. The present Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order dated 21.03.2018 vide which the petition filed by the appellants/maternal grandparents of the minor child to be appointed as ‘Guardian’ and to seek permanent custody was dismissed.

2. The factual matrix in brief is that a petition under Section 7 read with Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 was filed on behalf of the maternal grandparents/appellants to be appointed as Guardian and for permanent custody of their grandson Master Rehan. The appellants’

daughter Quamar Jahan was married to the respondent herein on 25.11.2007 and the couple was blessed with one son Master Rehan on 24.11.2008. According to the appellants, Quamar Jahan, their daughter was killed by the respondent on account of dowry demand and harassment within 7 years of marriage i.e. on 22.01.2010. The FIR under Sections 304-B/34 IPC was registered at P.S.Jyoti Nagar against the respondent and his parents. The respondent eloped with the child. However, subsequently, the respondent and his parents were arrested and sent to judicial custody.

3. Immediately after the respondent and his parents were sent to jail, the Guardianship Petition was filed by maternal grandparents/appellants on 24.02.2010 seeking the custody of the child. Initially, the other family members of the respondent had the custody of Master Rehan as the respondent was absconding. Child was recovered on 30.05.2010 and was handed over to the appellants on the same day and since then, the child is in their continuous custody.

4. The respondent and his other family members were acquitted in the criminal case on 07.11.2012. The appellants have however, preferred a criminal Appeal against the acquittal of the respondent and his family members and the same has been admitted by this Court.

5. On 18.08.2012, the respondent filed an application seeking interim custody of the child from the appellants under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 on the premise that he and his family members have been acquitted in criminal case. The learned Judge, Family Courts initially directed the custody of the child to be handed over to respondent from June, 2013 vide Order dated 04.03.2013. However, the Order was set aside by this Court in CM Petition No. 558/13 vide Order dated 22.05.2013 and the matter was remanded back to be decided afresh. The Judge, Family Courts vide Order dated 29.05.2013 directed the custody of the child to remain with the maternal grandparents/appellants. The respondent filed two SLP(s) bearing Nos. 19464/2013 and 19465/2013 before the Supreme Court of India challenging the Orders dated 22.05.2013 of this Court and 29.05.2013 of Family Court, but they also got dismissed by the Apex Court on 11.06.2013.

6. The appellants claimed the custody of the child on the ground that the acquittal of the respondent in criminal case is under challenge before this Court. The custody of the child has always been with the appellants and it is only after the acquittal that the respondent ever sought the transfer of the custody. There has been no change in circumstance since the custody of the child has been permitted to be with the maternal grandparents. It was also claimed that the respondent has been cruel to their daughter and as such, is not capable to keep the custody of the child. It was also claimed that the child was being used as a puppet to compromise with the respondent and his family members in the criminal case.

7. The appellants further asserted that the respondent and his family members are neither well educated, well mannered nor having etiquettes.

8. Since beginning their attitude was cruel which was manifested in their behaviour towards the daughter of the appellants. Moreover, they displayed rude behaviour and negligent attitude even towards the grandson. It was also claimed that there was every possibility that car