Heard Mr. Ramnandan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. By way of this petition, challenge is made to the order dated 5.5.2012 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara whereby interim custody of a child of three years, is given to the mother.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/father has contended that the sense of the child is not taken by the Court below, the child is not of three years but of about four years by this time and that the education of the child is also required to be taken care of. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bijay K. Prasad v. Ranjana, (1999) 9 SCC 544 and Mausami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli, (2008) 7 SCC 673.
4. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara has, in the impugned order dated 5.5.2012, recorded reasons in detail, why the custody of the child who is of about three years is required to be given to the mother. I have gone through the record of the present petition, more particularly, the reasons recorded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara for giving custody of the minor child to the mother. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Court below.
5. So far the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to consent of the child and reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bijay K. Prasad v. Ranjana, (1999) 9 SCC 544 is concerned, in my view the same would not be of any help to the petitioner, since in the said case, the child was staying with the father since more than eight years, while in the present case the age of the child, as recorded by the court below is of three years.
6. So far the contention regarding education of the child and reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mausami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli, (2008) 7 SCC 673 is concerned, there can not be any dispute with regard to the preposition of law that welfare of the child is of paramount consideration. For a child of three to four years of age, mother is the first teacher. Further it is not pointed out, how mother would not be able to provide schooling to the child. In fact, this point is not even canvassed before the court below, however learned counsel is permitted to raise this point in the high court and is answered accordingly.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the very judgement in the case of Mausami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli, (2008) 7 SCC 673, which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has, in para 20 observed thus :-
"20. The question of welfare of the minor child has again to be considered in the background of the relevant facts and circumstances. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and other decided cases can hardly serve as binding precedents insofar as the factual aspects of the case are concerned............."
8. While deciding the point of grant of custody of a minor child, the paramount consideration should be welfare of the child, and in the facts of this case, from the reading of the impugned order it is evident that this consideration is kept in mind by the court below.
9. In my view, the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any infirmity and does not call for any interference. The petition is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Interim protection granted by the Court below up to 25.5.2012 would now not survive. Order accordingly.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that time to hand over the custody of the child to the mother may be extended by four weeks. The request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case is rejected.
Sd/-
[PARESH UPADHYAY, J.] Savariya Top