A returns back late in the evening and, therefore, he is not in a position to look after the basic needs of the child. On the other hand, the respondent had been devoting all her time to the child after coming from the school and during her duties in the school, the child is being looked after by her parents who had been frequently visiting the matrimonial house. She pleaded that for the mental well-being and proper upbringing of the child, B her custody should be given to the respondent, being her natural mother and she be also appointed as her guardian. The appellant herein contested the said petition by filing the written statement wherein he took the stand that the respondent was not in a position to look after the child as there is nobody to look after her when the respondent goes for work. He also c mentioned that respondent's parents are residing at NOIDA whereas she is working and living in Delhi. On the contrary, it is the appellant who had provided all necessary expenses for the maintenance of the child, and even the respondent. He even accused the respondent for invariably getting drunk on their visits to Army Officers Mess in the parties. The trial court framed the issue which touches upon the dispute D that is whether the petitioner (the respondent herein) is entitled to custody of the child. Evidence was led by both the parties who examined themselves as PW-I and RW-1 respectively. The Principal Judge, Family Court was of the opinion that the appellant is fit person to retain the custody of the child and, therefore, dismissed the petition filed by the E respondent herein. The respondent challenged the order of the Family Court by filing the appeal, i.e. FOA No. 39 of 2012 in the High Court which has been allowed by the High Court. The High Court has found it appropriate to handover the custody of the child to the respondent/ mother. In the opinion of the High Court, the respondent, being mother of a girl child who was even less than five years' of age at the relevant F time, was better suited to take care of the child and this course of action is in the best interest of the child. The High Court, in the process, found fault with the approach adopted by the Family Judge, which had mainly relied upon the incident of August 07, 2010 to deny the custody of the child to the respondent on the ground that she had herself abandoned the G child on the said date.According to the High Court, the incident as narrated by the appellant was not believable and the version of the respondent, on the contrary, inspired confidence. The respondent had stated that though she wanted to take the child with her, the appellant had snatched her from the respondent. According to the High Court, if the intention of the respondent was to abandon the child she wou Id not have taken her clothes
