The welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in determining the question of custody.

( 1 ) THE simple question that arises for decision in the appeal is whether it will be for the welfare of the minor daughter to return to the custody at her lather, the appellant herein. To appreciate this question, it is necessary to set out a few relevant facts.

( 2 ) THE appellant herein married Venkata Kalua-vati in 1945 and the minor daughter Swayamprabha alias Papa was born in 1947. The appellant and his wife lived amicably till 1947. According to the respondent, the maternal grand-father, the appel-tant wanted the respondent to purchase a house in his name and as he refused to do so, his wife and child were left with him in 1948 or 1949. It is common ground that from 1948 or 1949, both Venkata Ratnavati and her minor daughter were living with the respondent. The appellant admitted that he did not send a pie to the minor girl for her maintenance.

( 3 ) THE exact date of the death of Venkata Ratnavati is in dispute between the parties. The appellant stated in his examination-in-chief that his wife and child were taken to the respondents house in 1948, that she died in January, 1949 and that he took a second wife thereafter. In the cross-examina-tion he stated that his first wife eloped with a Muhammadan and that he consequently married a second wife. Towards the end of the cross-examina-tion he stated that his wife was still living at Hyderabad. The respondent also gave varying ver-sions as to the date of the death of his daughter. In M. C. No. 20 of 1953 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Peddapuram, filed on 28-5-1953, he stated that the whereabouts of his daughter were not known and that he presumed that she was dead. But, in his counter to the present application, he stated that she died in August, 1952. When he was examined as R. W. 1, he deposed that she died in 1951. It is clear from the proceedings in C. C. No. 229 of 1950 on the file of the Addl. 1st Class Magistrate, Kakinada that the appellants wife was living at least on 12-10-1950. It is not necessary to decide for the purposes of the present application when exactly she died. She must have died some time after October 1950.

( 4 ) AS the mother and child were not taken back and as the appellant had married a second wife, C. C. No. 229 of 1950 was filed in the Addl. 1st Class Magistrates Court, Kakinada under the provisions of the Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act VI of 1949. The application was dismissed for default in November, 1950. As the father had neglected to maintain the child, the respondent herein filed M, C. No. 20 of 1953 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Peddapurarn for maintenance under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 28-5-1953. As a counterblast thereto, the present application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act was filed by the father for the return of the minor daughter to his custody. The respondent herein opposed the application, and the Court below accenting his contention dismissed the application. The father of the minor girl has thereupon preferred the above appeal.

( 5 ) THE main question that arises for consideration in the appeal is whether it will be for the welfare of the minor to return to the custody of her father. Sections 7, 17 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act enact that the Court will have to decide under each of the provisions the welfare of the minor. Section 19, on the other hand, provides that when the husband or the father is to be removed from the guardianship, the question as to whether they are unfit to be the guardians of the person of the minors has to be decided. As pointed out in Muthuveerappa Chetty v. Ponnuswamy Chetty, 22 Mad LJ 68, "the texts of Hindu Law do not recognize any absolute rights of guardianship in any one, the sovereign being entrusted wiih the guardianship of all minors and entitled to appoint any person as guardian in their interests. " In delivering the judgment on behalf of the Division Bench in Kumaraswami