1 / 9 2026:CGHC:22404-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 399 of 2025 Parasram Ogre S/o Shri Digreelal Ogre Aged About 32 Years Occupation- Agriculturist, R/o Village Pitaipali, Tahsil And P.S. Basna, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus Chhitabai Ogre W/o Shri Parasram Ogre Aged About 30 Years Occupation- Housewife, R/o Village Pilwapali, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant :Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent :Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 12/05/2026 Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J . 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/father under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1984”) against the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the learned Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.05.18 16:11:54 +0530 2 / 9 Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, Link Court, Saraipali, in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 02 of 2023, whereby application filed by the appellant/father under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1890”) seeking custody of the minor daughter was dismissed. 2. Assailing correctness and legality of the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellant/father submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider the paramount welfare and interest of the minor child, Neelam Ogre. It is contended that the appellant, being the natural guardian, is entitled to the custody of the minor daughter and is in a better position to provide proper education and a secure future for her. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that it was the respondent/wife who voluntarily left the matrimonial home and deserted the appellant. According to the appellant, the testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent/wife suffers from material contradictions and, therefore, ought not to have been relied upon by the Family Court. Therefore, impugned order passed by Family Court cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be set aside. 3. In alternate, learned counsel for the appellant submits that if this Court is not inclined to grant custody of the minor daughter to the appellant, appropriate visitation rights may be granted to enable him to meet his daughter regularly. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/wife submits that the appellant used to suspect the character of the respondent/wife and repeatedly taunted the minor child, Neelam Ogre, by alleging that she was not his biological daughter. It is further submitted that the 3 / 9 respondent/wife was subjected to physical and mental cruelty, including harassment in connection with dowry demands. According to the respondent, she was forcibly driven out of the matrimonial home by the appellant. A social meeting was convened on 12.11.2019 at the instance of the respondent; however, despite the same, appellant did not make any effort to bring back the respondent-wife and the child. It is further submitted that the respondent is properly taking care of the child and paying due attention to her education and upbringing. Learned counsel also submits that the appellant has contracted a second marriage and is residing with another woman as husband and wife. In such circumstances, entrusting the custody of the minor daughter to the appellant would not be conducive to her welfare and future. It is therefore contended that the order passed by the learned Family Court is just, proper, and calls for no interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the case. 6. In the present case, marriage between the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife solemnized on 02.07.2014 and the birth of a girl child out of the wedlock are undisputed. 7. The principles governing custody of a minor child are well settled. While deciding the issue of custody, the paramount consideration is always the welfare and best interest of the child and not the legal rights of the parents. 8. In case of Nil Ratan Kundu & Anr. Vs. Abhijit Kundu reported in 2008 (9) SCC 413, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while deciding the delicate and complex issue of custody of a minor, the Court must 4 / 9 keep in mind not only the statutory provisions and rights flowing therefrom, but also the human aspect involved in such matters. The Court observed that custody disputes cannot be decided merely on technical interpretations of law, as they involve emotional and social dimensions requiring a humane approach. It was further held that, while exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, the Court must give due importance to the child’s comfort, health, education, intellectual development, and moral and ethical upbringing. The preference of a child, if of sufficient maturity and understanding, must also be considered, though the final decision must rest upon what is ultimately conducive to the welfare of the child. 9. Recently, in Smriti Madan Kansagra Vs. Perry Kansagra reported in (2021) 12 SCC 289, Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the “best interest of the child” is the determinative factor in custody matters. The Court observed that factors such as the age and nationality of the child, the child’s ability to form an intelligent preference, the environment and living conditions available for the child’s holistic development, and the financial resources of the parents are all relevant considerations, though financial capability alone cannot be the sole determining factor. Paragraphs 15.1 to 15.5 of the judgment read as follows: “15.1. It is a well-settled principle of law that the courts while exercising parens patriae jurisdiction would be guided by the sole and paramount consideration of what would best subserve the interest and welfare of the child, to which all other considerations must yield. The welfare and benefit of the minor child would remain the dominant 5 / 9 consideration throughout. The courts must not allow the determination to be clouded by the inter se disputes between the parties and the allegations and counter-allegations made against each other with respect to their matrimonial life. In Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal this Court held that: (SCC p. 855, para 15) “15…..The children are not mere chattels: nor are they mere playthings for their parents. Absolute right of parents over the destinies and the lives of their children has, in the modern changed social conditions, yielded to the considerations of their welfare as human beings to that they may grow up in a normal balanced manner to be useful members of the society...” (emphasis supplied) 15.2. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in V. Ravi Chandran (2) v. Union of India opined: (SCC p. 194, para 27) "27.... It was also held that whenever a question arises before a court pertaining to the custody of a minor child, the matter is to be decided not on considerations of the legal rights of the parties, but on the sole and predominant criterion of what would serve the best interest of the minor.” (emphasis supplied) 15.3. Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 provides that the welfare of the minor must be of paramount consideration while deciding custody disputes. Section 13 provides as under: "13. Welfare of minor to be paramount consideration.-(1) In the appointment or declaration of any person as guardian of a Hindu minor by a court, the welfare of the minor shall be the paramount consideration. (2) No person shall be entitled to the guardianship by virtue of the provisions of this 6 / 9 Act or of any law relating to guardianship in marriage among Hindus, if the court is of opinion that his or her guardianship will not be for the welfare of the minor." 15.4. This Court in Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal held that the term "welfare" used in Section 13 must be construed in a manner to give it the widest interpretation. The moral and ethical welfare of the child must weigh with the court, as much as the physical well-being. This was reiterated in Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh , wherein it was opined that the "welfare" of the child comprehends an environment which would be most conducive for the optimal growth and development of the personality of the child. 15.5. To decide the issue of the best interest of the child, the Court would take into consideration various factors, such as the age of the child; nationality of the child; whether the child is of an intelligible age and capable of making an intelligent preference; the environment and living conditions available for the holistic growth and development of the child; financial resources of either of the parents which would also be a relevant criterion, although not the sole determinative factor; and future prospects of the child.” 10. In the present case, the appellant/applicant, Parasram Ogre, was examined as A.W.-1. In paragraph 12 of his cross-examination, he admitted that a meeting was scheduled to be held on 12.11.2016, though the same could not materialize. He further admitted that thereafter the respondent/wife went to her parental home and that he 7 / 9 made no effort to bring her back. He also admitted that no further meeting was convened thereafter by either side. 11. The respondent/wife, in her examination-in-chief, stated that though the behaviour of the appellant was cordial for a short period after marriage and they initially led a happy marital life, she was subsequently subjected to mental and physical harassment on account of dowry demands after the birth of their daughter. She further deposed that the appellant doubted her character and physically assaulted her by alleging that the daughter was not his child. She also stated that a social meeting was convened on 12.11.2016 before the elders of the community, after which the appellant abandoned her and never came to take her back. She further stated that the appellant has contracted a second marriage. Nothing substantial could be elicited in her cross- examination to discredit her testimony. 12. It is also pertinent to note that an interaction was held with the minor child, Neelam Ogre, by the learned Family Court in the absence of both parties. During such interaction, the minor disclosed that her father had remarried. She further stated that she had been residing with her mother since birth and expressed her desire to continue living with her mother. 13. Merely because the respondent/mother is unemployed and dependent upon maintenance paid by the appellant cannot, by itself, be a ground to deprive her of the custody of the minor child. No amount of financial affluence can substitute the love, affection, care, and emotional support which a mother can provide to a growing girl child. Similarly, the economic condition of the maternal family cannot 8 / 9 be treated as a decisive factor for denying custody to the mother. If the mother lacks independent financial means, the father may be directed to provide maintenance, but such circumstance cannot be used as a basis to deprive the mother of custody. It is equally important to bear in mind the biological and emotional needs of a growing girl child, particularly during the sensitive stage of puberty between the ages of 10 and 15 years. At such a stage, the child requires the special care, guidance, and emotional support of the mother. Certain biological and psychological changes undergone by a girl child during adolescence are best attended to by the mother. 14. In the present case, having regard to the evidence available on record, particularly the statement made by the minor child before the Family Court expressing her willingness to reside with her mother, and considering the child’s comfort, health, education, intellectual development, emotional well-being, and moral upbringing, this Court is of the considered opinion that the welfare and best interest of the child would be best served if her custody remains with the respondent/mother. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that finding recorded by the learned Family Court granting custody of the minor child to the respondent/mother does not warrant any interference and the same is hereby affirmed. 15. So far as the alternative prayer of the appellant seeking visitation rights is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yashita Sahu v State of Rajasthan reported in (2020) 3 SCC 67 observed that in custody disputes, it is invariably the child who becomes the real victim. The Court further held that despite acrimonious disputes between 9 / 9 spouses, a child is entitled to the love, affection, care, and protection of both parents, which constitutes a basic human right of the child. It was further observed that even where custody is granted to one parent, the other parent should ordinarily be granted adequate visitation rights so that the child does not lose emotional and psychological contact with either parent. Denial of such contact should occur only in exceptional circumstances. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant visitation rights to the appellant/father. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent/mother shall permit the minor child to meet and visit the appellant/father on every Sunday between 12:00 noon and 4:00 p.m., or at such mutually convenient time as may be agreed between the parties, at suitable place within the village respondent is residing because in evidence, respondent had submitted Ration Card of appellant mentioning his name as husband of Kalavati and name of two children. 17. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. 18. Let a decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Praveen