In child custody disputes, the welfare and best interests of the minor are the paramount considerations, superseding the legal rights of natural guardians. The court must prioritize the child's psychological, moral, and physical development, assessing the child's established environment over abstract legal entitlements.

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, challenging the legality and propriety of impugned judgment dated 15.10.2024 and decree signed and sealed dated 25.10.2024 by the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No.II, Dhanbad in Original Suit No.316 of 2021 filed by the petitioner/appellant herein under Section 25 of the Guardianship and Ward Act, 1890 for grant of guardianship certificate of his minor daughter, namely, Farhat Naaz, has been dismissed.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the petition, which requires to be enumerated, needs to be referred as under:

3. It is the case of the petitioner-husband (appellant herein) that the petitioner is the son-in-law of the respondent no-1 and marriage of the petitioner was solemnized on 23-04-2017 with daughter of the respondent no-1 namely Farhat Perween. During pregnancy of his wife she was taken to Dr. S.K. Das for regular check-up at Asharfi Hospital, Dhanbad where prior to the expected date of delivery she was advised for LSCS and a female child was born on 12-03-2019 who was named as Farhat Naaz. But due to the negligence of the doctor the condition of Farhat Naaz got deteriorated and as a result of which on advice of doctor she was taken to Medanta Hospital Ranchi and the newly born baby was taken by her Nana-Nani.

4. It had further been stated that the petitioner is the father of minor girl namely Farhat Naaza. It had further been stated that during the course of treatment his wife died on 25-03-2019 at Medanta Hospital, Ranchi. It had further been stated that after few days of the death of his wife he demanded custody of his daughter from his father-in-law (respondent no-1) but he refused to hand over the minor daughter of the petitioner.

5. It is further stated that the minor daughter was residing in her Nana's house. It is further stated that petitioner is a qualified and capable person to maintain his minor child and he wants to impart her good education. It is further stated that the respondent no-1 has no care and love with the aforesaid minor child and he is an old person and suffering from various disease and for which he cannot take care properly and impart good education to his minor daughter. It is further stated that he further undertakes that he will take proper care of his minor children in near future for better livelihood and education etc.

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant

6. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the factual aspect which was available before the learned Family Judge supported by the evidences has not properly been considered and as such, the judgment impugned is perverse, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law.

7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned family court has also failed to consider that the custody of the minor under Section 16 and under Section 25 of the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890 does not in any way entitle the maternal grandparents to have the custody on the ground that the father after re-marrying would lead to negligence of the child.

8. It has further been submitted that the learned family court has failed to appreciate that the capacity of a guardian to maintain the minor cannot solely depend upon the financial resources and it would include the physical and the moral capacity and the capacity to look after the physical, psychological and the moral well-being of the minor.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment impugned suffers from perversity, as such, not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent

10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while defending the impugned judgment, has submitted that there is no error in the impugned judgement. The learned Family Judge has considered all aspects of the matte