JUDGMENT : Rajani Dubey, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/non-applicant against the impugned judgment dated 01.04.2023 passed by learned Family Court, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 11-A/2021, whereby the learned Family Court has allowed the application of respondent/applicant who filed the same under Section 7 & 10 of Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 for custody of ward Master Purushottam Singh aged about 04 years. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant/respondent Lalit Kishore Bais filed an application before the learned Family Court on this ground that the marriage of the non- applicant/appellant was solemnized with Ragini Singh according to Hindu rites and rituals and out of their wedlock, one son Master Purushottam Singh was born on 14.02.2017 and after the birth of son, the wife of appellant namely Ragini Singh was died on 12.03.2017 and since then, the minor Purushottam Singh is living with the applicant/respondent Lalit Kishore Bais who is his maternal uncle, as such the respondent herein filed an application for custody of minor child Purushottam Singh on this ground that the minor child is living with him since his birth and his father non-applicant/appellant never tried to take back his son with him and he performed second marriage, as such the applicant/respondent be appointed as a guardian of minor child. 3. Appellant/non-applicant Taran Singh in his reply denied all allegations of the respondent/applicant and stated that he is father of the minor child Purushottam Singh and is a natural guardian of Purushottam Singh, and he is working in District Court, Durg as a Class-IV employee (Peon) and after the birth of minor child Purushottam Singh, his mother, the wife of the non-applicant was died and looking to the age of the minor child, he kept him with his grandparents so that they can take care of him. Now, the minor child is aged about 4 years and non-applicant/appellant is being a father, i.e., natural guardian of ward, he has taken care of education and maintenance of child. So, the application filed by the applicant/respondent may be dismissed. 4. Now, the minor child is aged about 4 years and non-applicant/appellant is being a father, i.e., natural guardian of ward, he has taken care of education and maintenance of child. So, the application filed by the applicant/respondent may be dismissed. 4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence of both the parties, allowed the application of maternal uncle who is applicant/respondent herein and was appointed as a guardian to the minor child Purushottam Singh, hence this appeal filed by the appellant/non-applicant i.e., father of the minor child Purushottam Singh before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/non-applicant submits that the impugned judgment is perverse, illegal, erroneous and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as to the evidence available on record, therefore, it is liable to be quashed. The learned Family Court has committed serious illegality in allowing the application under Section 7 & 10 of Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 filed by the respondent/applicant. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant/respondent has not performed second marriage with any other lady and there are other family members in the family of the appellant/non-applicant who are capable to properly look after the minor child Master Purushottam Singh, as such the custody of Master Purushottam Singh may be provided to the appellant/non- applicant. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the appellant/non-applicant is in a better position to take care of his minor son properly and to provide him better education which is essential for him to stand on his own feet. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the Master Purushottam Singh is now aged about 6 years, therefore, according to the provisions of Act of 1956, the appellant/non-applicant is firstly entitled to take the custody of minor child . Before passing the impugned judgment, the learned Family Court ought to have known the will of Master Purushottam Singh in respect of his custody either with the appellant/non- applicant or with the respondent/applicant. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent/applicant being maternal uncle is not entitled to be appointed as a guardian of minor child. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that from time to time the appellant/non-applicant used to visit the respondent/applicant’s house for taking care and providing love and affection to his minor son. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent/applicant being maternal uncle is not entitled to be appointed as a guardian of minor child. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that from time to time the appellant/non-applicant used to visit the respondent/applicant’s house for taking care and providing love and affection to his minor son. While passing the impugned judgment, the learned Family Court ought to have considered the paramount welfare of the minor child and the paramount welfare can be achieved by the minor child when his custody will be given in favour of the appellant/non-applicant. So, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 6. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Nil Ratan Kundu and another v. Abhijit Kundu reported in (2008) 9 SCC 413, in the matter of Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal reported in (2009) 1 SCC 42 , in the matter of Tejaswini Gaud and Others v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and others reported in (2019) 7 SCC 42, and in the matter of Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi and another v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 264. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent/applicant has supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Family Court has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and rightly allowed the application of the respondent/applicant. As such, the findings recorded by the learned Family Court are well merited, this Court does not find any infirmity and illegality warranting interference. 8. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court’s judgment dated 20.12.2022 passed in FAM No. 182/2018 in the matter of Prabhat v. Minor Lomesh and Anr. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Shazia Aman Khan and Another v. The State of Orissa and Others reported in (2024) 3 S.C.R. 10 , in this Court’s judgment dated 25.04.2025 passed in FA(MAT) No. 163/2022 in the matter of Suresh Kumar Kurre v. Ku. Khushbu Kurre. 9. We have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 10. It is not disputed in this case that the appellant/non-applicant Taran Singh is father of the minor child Purushottam Singh and the respondent/applicant Lalit Kishore Bais is maternal uncle of the minor child. Khushbu Kurre. 9. We have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 10. It is not disputed in this case that the appellant/non-applicant Taran Singh is father of the minor child Purushottam Singh and the respondent/applicant Lalit Kishore Bais is maternal uncle of the minor child. It is also not disputed that the marriage of mother of Master Purushottam Singh viz. Ragini Singh and appellant/non- applicant Taran Singh was performed according to Hindu rites and rituals and out of their wedlock, minor child Purushottam Singh was born on 14.02.2017. On 12.03.2017, Ragini Singh the mother of the minor child was died and since then, the minor child Purushottam Singh was living with his maternal uncle Lalit Kishore Bais i.e. respondent/applicant. 11. Appellant/non-applicant Taran Singh admits in para 5 of his cross-examination that ever since the death of his wife Ragini, his minor son Purushotam Singh has been living at at his maternal uncle-Lalit Kishore Bais’s house. in para 7 of his cross-examination he admitted that he got married again only a year after the death of his first wife Ragini and he has a girl child from his second wedlock and he denied the suggestion that he did not try to keep his minor son Purushottam Singh with him. Father of the appellant/non-applicant viz. Raja Singh also admitted in para 7 of his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that Master Purushottam Singh lives with his maternal uncle and it is true that soon after marriage, within a year of his first wife’s death, the appellant/non-applicant performed second marriage and out of that wedlock he has one girl child. It is also true that till date we have not taken any action to take the custody of the child, nor we have made any social efforts. 12. We have interacted with both the parties for mediation along with the child on 12.12.2024, but as per mediation report dated 28.01.2025, the mediation between the parties was not successful. 13. Learned Family Court on the basis of pleadings of both the parties framed following issues which are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- 14. Learned Family Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence of both the parties observed in paras 30 & 31 as under :- 15. 13. Learned Family Court on the basis of pleadings of both the parties framed following issues which are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- 14. Learned Family Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence of both the parties observed in paras 30 & 31 as under :- 15. It is evident from statement of both the parties that the minor son Purushottam Singh is residing with his maternal uncle since his childhood. The appellant/father admitted that he performed second marriage and out of that wedlock, he has one girl child. Father of the appellant also admitted this fact that they never tried to take custody of minor Purushottam Singh, nor even called for any social meeting. The learned trial Court rightly finds that welfare of the minor child Purushottam Singh is with his maternal uncle/respondent. 16. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Shazia Aman Khan (supra) held in paras 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 which reads as thus:- “12. This Court in Mausami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli reported in (2008) 8 SCR 260 : (2008) 7 SCC 673 opined that the stability and security of the child is an essential ingredient for full development of child’s talent and personality. Relevant paragraph thereof is extracted below: “23. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the material on record and the observations made by the courts below, we are of the view that in the present case there is no ground to upset the judgment and order of the High Court. There is nothing on record to suggest that the welfare of the child is in any way in peril in the hands of the father. In our opinion, the stability and security of the child is also an essential ingredient for a full development of child's talent and personality. As noted above, the appellant is a teacher, now employed in a school at Panipat, where she had shifted from Chandigarh some time back. Earlier she was teaching in some school at Calcutta. Admittedly, she is living all alone. Except for a very short duration when he was with the appellant, Master Satyajeet has been living and studying in Allahabad in a good school and stated to have his small group of friends there. At Panipat, it would be an entirely new environment for him as compared to Allahabad. 13. Admittedly, she is living all alone. Except for a very short duration when he was with the appellant, Master Satyajeet has been living and studying in Allahabad in a good school and stated to have his small group of friends there. At Panipat, it would be an entirely new environment for him as compared to Allahabad. 13. In Nil Ratan Kundu and another v. Abhijit Kundu reported in (2008) 11 SCR 1111 : (2008) 9 SCC 413 this Court laid down the principles governing custody of minor children and held that welfare of the children is to be seen and not the rights of the parties by observing as under: “Principles governing custody of minor children 53. In our judgment, the law relating to custody of a child is fairly well-settled and it is this. In deciding a difficult and complex question as to custody of minor, a Court of law should keep in mind relevant statutes and the rights flowing therefrom. But such cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions. It is a humane problem and is required to be solved with human touch. A Court while dealing with custody cases, is neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure nor by precedents. In selecting proper guardian of a minor, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child. In selecting a guardian, the Court is exercising parens patriae jurisdiction and is expected, nay bound, to give due weight to a child's ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favourable surroundings. But over and above physical comforts, moral and ethical values cannot be ignored. They are equally, or we may say, even more important, essential and indispensable considerations. If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference or judgment, the Court must consider such preference as well, though the final decision should rest with the Court as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor. xx xx xx 55. We are unable to appreciate the approach of the Courts below. This Court in catena of decisions has held that the controlling consideration governing the custody of children is the welfare of children and not the right of their parents.” 14. This Court has consistently held that welfare of the child is of paramount consideration and not personal law and statute. This Court in catena of decisions has held that the controlling consideration governing the custody of children is the welfare of children and not the right of their parents.” 14. This Court has consistently held that welfare of the child is of paramount consideration and not personal law and statute. In Ashish Ranjan v. Anupam Tandon and another reported in (2010) 14 SCR 961 : (2010) 14 SCC 274 , this Court held as under: “19. The statutory provisions dealing with the custody of the child under any personal law cannot and must not supersede the paramount consideration as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor. In fact, no statute on the subject, can ignore, eschew or obliterate the vital factor of the welfare of the minor. 15. This Court in Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma reported in (2015) 2 SCR 572 : (2015) 8 SCC 318 opined that the child is not a chattel or ball that it is bounced to and fro. Welfare of the child is the focal point. Relevant lines from para-No. 18 are reproduced hereunder: “18………There can be no cavil that when a court is confronted by conflicting claims of custody there are no rights of the parents which have to be enforced; the child is not a chattel or a ball that is bounced to and fro the parents. It is only the child’s welfare which is the focal point for consideration. Parliament rightly thinks that the custody of a child less than five years of age should ordinarily be with the Mother and this expectation can be deviated from only for strong reasons.” 16. Another principle of law which is settled with reference to custody of the child is the wish of the child, if she is capable of. Reference can be made to Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka and others’ case (supra) . It was held as under: “13. We have stated earlier that the question ‘what is the wish/desire of the child’ can be ascertained through interaction, but then, the question as to ‘what would be the best interest of the child’ is a matter to be decided by the court taking into account all the relevant circumstances. It was held as under: “13. We have stated earlier that the question ‘what is the wish/desire of the child’ can be ascertained through interaction, but then, the question as to ‘what would be the best interest of the child’ is a matter to be decided by the court taking into account all the relevant circumstances. A careful scrutiny of the impugned judgment would, however, reveal that even after identifying the said question rightly the High Court had swayed away from the said point and entered into consideration of certain aspects not relevant for the said purpose. We will explain the raison d’etre for the said remark.” 17. In the light of above cited judgments and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the accused/appellant is the father of the minor child Purushottam Singh and minor child is now aged about 08 years and he is residing with his maternal uncle since his childhood. The findings arrived at by the learned Family Court with respect to the custody of minor child Purushottam Singh is to be with his maternal uncle is hereby maintained. However, we are of the opinion that as the appellant is father of minor Purushottam Singh, so we order to facilitate him visitation rights and contact rights as under :- “(i) The appellant/father and respondent/maternal uncle would be able to engage with the child on a suitable video conferencing platform or mobile phone for one hour every Saturday/Sunday, and whenever he desires. (ii) During the holidays/vacation covering more than 2 weeks, minor child will be allowed to be in the company of father for long visitation of 5-10 days. The period shall be fixed by the appellant/father and the same shall be intimated to the maternal uncle beforehand so that he can permit the minor child to meet her father and shall not be able to create any hindrance amongst them. (iii) During festivals the father may join the company of the child at the place of the maternal uncle or any independent venue which must be adaptable to his son and spend the festival holidays with the child for a day.” 18. Let a decree be drawn up accordingly. 19. No order as to cost.