BALRAM MANDAL Vs. RAJANI MANDALAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 47 of the 'Guardians and Wards Act is directed against an order ot the District Judge of the Santhai Parganas appointing the mother of a boy to act as the guardian of his person.

(2.) It appaars that the appellant Balram Mandal had no issue by his first wife, Boma Mandalain, He, therefore, took a second wife, namely, the respondent Rajani Mandalain, from whom fie got several daughters and a son, Jagarnath Mandal. It further appears that for differences between the husband and the second wife, the second wife, Rajani, has to leave her husband's house along with her daughters and to live with her father at her father's house. The son, however, was living with the father in whose house the only female member was his first wife, namely, the step-mother of the boy. According to the mother of the boy, he was not being treated favourably by his step-mother, and, for the welfare of the boy, she thought it necessary to be appointed as the guardian of his person. She, therefore, made an application before the District Judge for being appointed as the guardian of this person. An objection was raised on behalf of the "father that he was the fit person to act as the guardian of the person of the boy and the mother should not be appointed as guardian in consideration of the welfare of the boy. Both parties adduced evidence in support of 'their respective claims. The learned District Judge agreed with the contention of the respondent and appointed he as the guardian of the person of the boy, Jagarnath. The father, Balram, has, therefore, presented this appeal.

(3.) The principle of law that is applicable in appointing a guardian of a minor has been rightly pointed out by the learned District Judge to be that the interest and welfare of a minor is the first and main consideration for such an appointment. Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act clearly states that the Court, in order to appoint or declare a person, to be the guardian of a minor, must be satisfied that it is for the welfare of the minor Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said Act states that, in appointing or declaring the guardian of a minor, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be guided bay what, consistently with the law to which the minor is subject, appears in the circumstances to be for the welfare of the minor. Sub-section (2) of that section lays down as to what should be taken into consideration in deciding as to what will be for the welfare of the minor, and in that connection it lays down that the Court shall have regard to the age, sex and religion of the minor, the character and capacity of the proposed guardian and his nearness of kin to the minor. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that, in appointing a guardian, the Court has to look to the welfare of the minor. The evidence adduced in this case, as discussed by the learned District Judge, clearly shows that for the welfare of the minor the mother, and not the fathar, is a person fit to be appointed as the guardian of the person of the minor.