ORDER : Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Avishek Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.05.2023 passed by Shri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 341 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the suit preferred by the respondents herein u/s 6 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 has been allowed. 3. For the sake of convenience both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the learned trial court. 4. The petitioners (respondents herein) had preferred a suit against the respondent (appellant herein) u/s 6 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for custody of Khushboo and inter alia it has been stated that the marriage of the daughter of the petitioner namely, Rozy Praveen was solemnized on 08.08.2015 with Md. Adam as per Muslim rites and customs. After the marriage, the daughter of the petitioner was subjected to physical and mental torture. It has been stated that out of the said wedlock a daughter was born to Rozy Praveen on 16.06.2016. On 24.12.2017 the petitioners received an information that their daughter had died at her matrimonial house and at the time of death she was pregnant. In this context, the petitioner no. 1 had instituted a criminal case against his son-in-law and the parents of his son-in-law being Chas P.S. Case No. 322 of 2017 u/s 304B of the IPC. The accused persons were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the trial court on 08.05.2019. The FSL report revealed that organophosphorus pesticide was administered upon the daughter of the petitioners. The petitioner no. 1 works as a Tailor and earns an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month while the petitioner no. 2 works at Infant Jesus School and earns an amount of Rs.10,000/-. The respondent no. 1 and his parents are in custody and there is no other person to take care of the child. The respondent no. 2 is the aunt of Khushboo who does not have any source of income and is not in a position to maintain the child. 5. On being noticed the respondents had appeared and filed a written statement in which they have denied the allegations made of committing physical and mental torture upon the daughter of the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 is the aunt of Khushboo who does not have any source of income and is not in a position to maintain the child. 5. On being noticed the respondents had appeared and filed a written statement in which they have denied the allegations made of committing physical and mental torture upon the daughter of the petitioner. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro had acquitted the respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 in S.T. No. 289 of 2018 and S.T. No. 138 of 2018 from the charge u/s 304B of the IPC. The respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 have been convicted but the respondent nos. 3 and 4 are on bail in appeal. While granting bail to the respondent nos. 3 and 4 a condition was imposed for depositing Rs. 1,00,000/- as fixed deposit in the name of the child which shall be renewed from time to time. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 were therefore made the guardians of the child Khushboo. The petitioners in order to usurp the compensation to be granted to Khushboo under the Victim Compensation Scheme had filed a suit after such application for compensation was made. The petitioners are not in a position to able to maintain Khushboo and had filed a suit with an eye on the fixed deposit which is in the name of Khushboo. The respondent no. 1 is the father of the child, respondent no. 2 is the aunt who is well off and financially sound but the respondent no. 3 is the grandfather who has a shoe shop near Mahavir Chowk, Chas and he also is involved in floral decorations earning an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month approximately. The respondent no. 2 works in Qatar and he has an earning of Rs. 40,000/- per month. The respondent no. 4 is the grandmother of Khushboo who can properly take care of the child. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties the following issues have been framed for adjudication: (i) Is this suit maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether the petitioners be appointed a guardian of the minor child Khushboo for welfare of the said minor child according to the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890? (iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for? 7. (ii) Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether the petitioners be appointed a guardian of the minor child Khushboo for welfare of the said minor child according to the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890? (iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for? 7. The petitioners have examined as many as four witnesses in support of its case. 8. P.W.1 (Rashida Bibi) is the petitioner no. 2 who has stated that the marriage of her daughter was solemnized with Md. Adam on 08.08.2015 as per Muslim rites and customs and out of the said wedlock a daughter namely, Khushboo was born on 16.06.2016. After the marriage her daughter was mentally and physically tortured by her husband and parents-in-law. On 24.12.2017, she and her husband has received an information that their daughter has died at her matrimonial house and at the time of her death she was pregnant. In relation to the said incident her husband had lodged a criminal case against Md. Adam and his parents’ u/s 304B/34 of the IPC being Chas P.S. Case No. 322 of 2017. Charge sheet was submitted by the Police against all the three accused persons and they were convicted on 07.05.2019 and sentenced to imprisonment for life on 08.05.2019. Her husband is a Tailor who works in Maheshwari Vastralaya and earns an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month. She has a job of cleaning and looking after the children in Infant Jesus School and she earns an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month. She has stated that the respondent no. 1 is in custody while his parents are on bail. There is no person to look after the welfare of the child. In cross-examination, she has deposed that during the period her daughter was alive no complaint was made regarding the torture committed upon her. Her granddaughter from the time of her birth is staying with her paternal grandparents. Her granddaughter has stayed with her for one and a half years. She knows that the in-laws of her daughter has a two storied house. She had heard that Khushboo is studying in an English Medium School. Her husband carries out his work as a Tailor in the footpath and she is engaged in a cleaning job in a School. 9. P.W.2 (Sk. Pappu) has reiterated what has been stated by P.W.1. She knows that the in-laws of her daughter has a two storied house. She had heard that Khushboo is studying in an English Medium School. Her husband carries out his work as a Tailor in the footpath and she is engaged in a cleaning job in a School. 9. P.W.2 (Sk. Pappu) has reiterated what has been stated by P.W.1. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is the brother of Rozy Praveen. When his sister was tortured, he was at Kharagpur and, therefore, he was not able to make any complaint anywhere regarding the same. His mother works in Infant Jesus School as a Nanny and earns an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month. His father works in the footpath as a Tailor. His parents have a house which has been constructed under the Pradhan Mantri Aawas Yojana. The grandfather of Khushboo runs a shoe shop in the footpath. 10. P.W.3 (Ravi Bauri) has echoed what has been stated by P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their sworn statement. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not know against whom the case has been filed by the petitioners. The petitioner no. 1 works as a Tailor and earns an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month while the petitioner no. 2 works as a Nanny in Infant Jesus School and earns Rs. 10,000/- per month. He does not have any knowledge that the father of Md. Adam has a shoe shop near Mahavir Chowk, Chas and also works as a floral decorist and earns an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month. The petitioner stays in a house constructed under the Pradhan Mantri Aawas Yojana. 11. P.W.4 (Md. Harbul) is the petitioner no. 1 whose evidence is similar to that of P.W.1. In cross-examination, he has deposed that from her birth Khushboo stays with her paternal grandparents. He does the work of stitching and fitting in the verandah in front of Maheshwari Vastralaya and his wife does the job of cleaning in Infant Jesus School and earns an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month. He has his own land upon which a house has been constructed under the Pradhan Mantri Aawas Yojana. The father- in-law of his daughter has a two storied house. He has a son who drives a tempo. 12. The respondents have examined three witnesses in support of their case. 13. R.W.1 (Md. 10,000/- per month. He has his own land upon which a house has been constructed under the Pradhan Mantri Aawas Yojana. The father- in-law of his daughter has a two storied house. He has a son who drives a tempo. 12. The respondents have examined three witnesses in support of their case. 13. R.W.1 (Md. Aslam) is the paternal grandfather of the minor child Khushboo who has stated that Rozy Praveen after her marriage never made any complaint to any authority or before the Court regarding the purported torture committed upon her. The respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 were never convicted for the offence u/s 304B of the IPC. The High Court had granted him bail in appeal as well as to respondent no. 4. The application for guardianship was filed by the petitioners after the compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme was forwarded which was only with a view to usurp the money. The petitioner no. 1 works as a Tailor and has difficulty in making both ends meet. The petitioners want to somehow have control over the fixed deposit amount which was deposited in the name of Khushboo. The petitioners are not in a position to maintain Khushboo as they are not financially sound whereas he and his family members are well off and have the means to take care of the minor child. In cross-examination, he has deposed that his son lives in Qatar and sends Rs. 25,000/- per month to him. 14. R.W.2 (Perwez Alam) is the neighbor of the respondents who has reiterated what has been stated by R.W.1. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he knows the respondents for the last ten years. 15. R.W.3 (Md. Adam Ansari) is respondent no. 1 and the father of Khushboo who has reiterated what has been stated by R.W.1. He has also proved some documents which have been variously marked as Exhibits. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had looked after his parents-in-law at the time of their stone operation and eye operation. 16. It has been submitted by Mr. 1 and the father of Khushboo who has reiterated what has been stated by R.W.1. He has also proved some documents which have been variously marked as Exhibits. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had looked after his parents-in-law at the time of their stone operation and eye operation. 16. It has been submitted by Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent that the learned trial court has not taken into consideration the basic features and objects of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 as only on account of the father and grandparents of the minor child having been convicted u/s 302 of the IPC they have been deprived from the custody of the child. It has been submitted that the respondents herein do not have the financial means to sustain themselves and giving them the custody would be a travesty to the child. The evidence of the appellants clarifies the fact that they are not in a position to look after the welfare of the child. 17. Mr. Avishek Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the proper welfare and growth both psychology and emotionally of the child would be hampered if she is allowed to stay with the appellants considering the fact that they have been found guilty in committing the murder of the mother of the child. The order of the learned trial court does not necessitate any interference by this Court as appropriate reasons have been assigned in the same. 18. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the Trial Court Records. 19. The petitioners being the maternal grandparents had filed the suit for custody of minor Khushboo and the predominant features of their claim is the murder of their daughter (mother of Khushboo) for which the respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 were convicted for the offence u/s 302 of the IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for life. The learned trial court has accepted such contention and had declared the petitioners to be the legal guardian of the minor child Khushboo. 20. 1, 3 and 4 were convicted for the offence u/s 302 of the IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for life. The learned trial court has accepted such contention and had declared the petitioners to be the legal guardian of the minor child Khushboo. 20. The evidence of the witnesses of the petitioners including the petitioners does make it clear that right from the time of her birth the minor child is staying with her paternal grandparents as nothing to the contrary has been stated by any of the witnesses though P.W.1 has given a slightly discordant note to the effect that Khushboo had stayed with her for one and a half years but such assertion does not appear to be convincing. The other essential feature is the financial stability of the parties and as per the admission of P.W.1 and P.W.4 they seem to earn a meager amount which can be dissected from the work they do as despite making claims that both earn Rs. 10,000/- per month but no documents in support thereof have been produced. As per P.W.4 he does the work of stitching in a verandah in front of Maheshwari Vastralaya whereas P.W.1 works as a Nanny in Infant Jesus School. There financial status can be fathomed from the fact that they live in a house constructed under the Pradhan Mantri Aawas Yojana. Their evidence further signifies that the respondents are well off financially having a two storied house and as per P.W.1 the minor child is studying in an English Medium School. P.W.1 in his cross-examination has deposed that one of his sons who stays in Qatar sends him Rs. 25,000/- per month. 21. The entire scenario indicated above would suggest that the welfare and betterment of the child will be secured if she is allowed to reside under the guardianship of her paternal grandparents and uprooting her from such secured environment would be detrimental to the welfare of the child. The learned trial court has not even glanced at the evidence of the witnesses while allowing the suit. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove set aside the judgment dated 15.05.2023 passed by Shri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 341 of 2019. 22. This appeal is allowed. 23. Pending I.As., if any, stands closed.