The first and foremost question here is that status and future prospect of the parties. The respondent is a person who is capable of discharging the responsibility and can take care of the child in a more ethical and moral manner. Being a Colonel in the army, he has got sufficient means to take care for the upbringing of the child. Although the financial status is not the sole criteria but what is most important is moral and ethical teaching. The status of the appellant is of a divorcee lady who has con summated the second marriage with a person she had previous acquaintance even during subsistence of the first marriage. The second husband is admittedly a neighbour and before the trial court the respondent has shown the call details of mobile phone she used to converse with the second husband even before divorce, and maintained long conversation. She was seen in the company of the second husband without seeking divorce. During the arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant further added a feather in her cap that now at the most she has also got rid of the second husband and is living alone. This shows frickle mindedness of the appellant and also indicates that she cannot keep company of a person for a long period, what to say throughout her life ? Even if it is presumed that respondent is an indecent man and treated the appellant with cruelty, then what occasioned her to leave the second husband ? That means she herself is not certain as to how to live and behave with husband.

Under these circumstances, it is very apparent that what impression one can gather from her attitude. She is in the habit of changing husband like shedding her cloth. The flickering attitude of her may cause adverse moral and ethical impression on the minds of young children, and especially the girl child, who can follow her steps which will be a problem for her father.

The arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant that she can take care of the children and will guard them well and look after their welfare in a better manner than that of her previous husband does not appeal us. We are of the opinion that there is no force in the arguments raised on her behalf that she will prove to be dutiful mother. On the contrary her attitude towards love is not positive for upbringing of the

young children.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that learned lower court has rightly held that custody be handed over to the respondent instead of the appellant because the court has to observe the family welfare of the young children.