Gua.P. 1/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A. K. GOEL THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY (Goel, J.) This appeal relates to custody of a minor male child, namely, Sri Subhan Malakar , aged 12 years, living with the appellant. The respondent is the natural mother and natural guardian. The appellant has brought up the child. The circumstances in which the appellant had to bring up the child have been set out in the impug ned order. While the child was staying with the appellant, the respondent natura l mother filed application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 , seeking custody. The respondent is a widow and earning her livelihood by domes tic work. She also has another son, who is dumb, and two daughters. On account d ifferences with her husband the respondent parted company with the child and the child was left to be looked after by the appellant. Though there is dispute wit h regard to exact duration for which the child was brought up by the appellant, it is undisputed that for a substantial period the appellant has been bringing u p the child. The child expressed desire to live with the appellant. However, the learned District Judge dealing with the matter observed that wish of the child was not conclusive as the child may not understand his welfare. Accordingly the guardianship court directed the custody of the child to be given to the responde nt natural mother. When the matter came up for hearing on an earlier occasion, this Court had direc ted the Principal Judge, Family Court, Silchar, to interact with the child to fi nd out with whom he would like to live. The Principal Judge has sent a report t o this Court dated 24.06.2011 stating that the child wishes to continue to live with the appellant. We have heard Mr. K. K. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B. Banerj ee, learned counsel for the respondent. No doubt the respondent is the natural mother and in normal course will be entit led to custody of the child as rightly held by the learned District Judge but in the peculiar facts and circumstances, we find that practically the child has be en brought up by the appellant and is attached to the appellant. According to th e learned Principal Judge, Family Court, the child is intelligent and understand s his welfare. In these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the imp ugned order directing custody of the child to be given to the respondent cannot be sustained. Welfare of the child is the paramount factor and on that conside ration the appellant should have the custody of the child. Mere fact that the re spondent was natural mother was not conclusive to determine that welfare of the child is in custody being given to her. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order subject to th e condition that the respondent will be entitled to visiting rights by mutual ar rangement between the parties. In case of any difference on this issue, the part ies will be at liberty to approach the learned District Judge, Hailakandi, for a ny further direction. The appeal is disposed of.