Arvinder Singh v. Sarabjit Kaur .

(1) Grant of custody of minor child by court-Though the provisions of the special statutes which govern the right of the parents or guardians may be taken into consideration, there is nothing which can stand in the way of the Court exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction arising in such cases. (2) Father is natural guardian, but for custody of child paramount consideration is as to what is conducive to welfare of minor. (3) When conflicting demands are made by parents, court then should not give emphasis on what the parties say - Court has to exercise a jurisdiction which is aimed at welfare of minor. (4) Children are not mere chattels nor are they toys for their parents. (5) Even if father loved the children and was not undesirable person would not necessarily lead to conclusion that welfare of children would be better promoted by granting custody of children to father. (6) In considering the question of welfare of minor, due regard has of course to be given to the right of the father as natural guardian but if the custody of the father cannot promote the welfare of the children, he may be refused such guardianship."

11. As observed above, in his statement recorded by the court the child had unequivocally stated that the petitioner, who was present in court, was not known to him and that he desired to live with his mother. He at that time was studying in class 6th, which means that for all these years ever since the parties separated, the appellant had never even bothered to visit the child because of which he was not able to recognize him. When this was the attachment and care of the appellant for the minor son, he certainly was not entitled to his custody. The wish of the minor child and his welfare is the paramount consideration and in the totality of the circumstances the appellant has no right to claim the custody of the minor. Thus, keeping in view all facts and circumstances, there appears to be no perversity or illegality in the findings of learned trial Court. The overall welfare including moral and ethical welfare of the child lies with the respondent-mother and the appellant-father is not entitled to custody of the minor child. The findings warrant no intervention and as such, the appeal is dismissed. ____________