1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.343/2008 Mangala Kore ..vs.. Prabhakar Kore ================================== CORAM: S.R. DONGAONKAR, J. DATE: 28.7.2008 Heard Mr. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. None present for the respondents though served. 2] Appellant is seeking to challenge the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Bhandara in M.J.C. 57/2006 whereby petition of the appellant for taking custody of respondent no.2 & 3 was dismissed. 3] On perusal of the impugned judgment, prima facie, it does not appear that the same is incorrect. 4] It is necessary to mention that respondent no2 has now become major and therefore, the petition of the appellant for his custody would not survive. 5] As regards the custody of respondent no.3 it appears that the learned Judge has considered the matter in proper perspective. he has recorded that the wish of the respondent no.3 was considered by him. Respondentno.3 was examined before the court to know his wishes and respondent no.3 had stated that he is staying with his father. He had no occasion to see his mother – present appellant. His father did not prevent him from contacting or keeping relation with his mother and he has specifically 2 expressed his wish to live in the company of the father. He has also expressed the intention to see the mother, provided she comes to see him. Respondent no.3 had wished to live with his father. 7] Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent no.3 is taking education at village Virli where there are no education facilities to meet his educational demands. This contention cannot be considered for admitting this appeal inasmuch as he can take education at some other place as may be required. Wish of the respondent no.3 has to be considered as of paramount importance and therefore, when respondent no.3 does not want to live with the appellant, his custody can not be divested, particularly considering his age. 8] Learned counsel for the appellant has also pressed into service the fact of the respondent no.3's preferring an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the appellant to contend that respondent no.1 is unable to maintain him. That matter can be decided on its own merit. 9] In these circumstances, there is no sufficient reason to admit this appeal, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE smp.