The welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in appointing a guardian, and the father should continue as the guardian unless proven unfit, as per the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and the Guardians and Wards Act.

( 1 ) THE appellant Kamalamma is the mother of a child by name raja alias Nagaraja alias Nagendra. She filed a petition before the learned district Judge, Shimoga, in Mis. No. 25 of 1964 under S. 10 of the guardians and Wards Act for appointing her as the guardian of the person of the aforesaid child. That petition was presented to the court on 1-2-64. The respondent Lakshminarayanarao alias Shamanna is the husband. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was consuinated some time during the year 1961. The child was born to them on 13-4-62.

( 2 ) THE appellant in the course of the petition alleged that during her stay with the respondent in her father-in-law's house, she was being ill-treated by her husband and her father-in-law and that she was not being looked after properly. She further averred that she was taken to the mental Hospital at Bangalore under false pretext even though she was not mentally unsound for being treated there and that after she was found to be perfectly normal by the Doctor at the Mental Hospital at bangalore, she came back to Sakrepatna where the respondent and her father-in-law lived. After some time, it is stated that the appellant left the house of the respondention 3-9-1963 leaving the child behind. She thereafter presented the petition under S. 10 of the Guardians and Wards act before the District Judge, Shimoga, requesting that she might be appointed as the guardian of the person of the child and the custody of the child be handed over to her.

( 3 ) THE respondent in his objection statement claimed he was a fit and proper person to be the guardian of the person of the child. He has stated that he was not in any way Incapacitated to continue as the guardian of the childly virtue of his position as the natural guardian under law. He further urged that the appellant was not looking after the child well even when the appellant was staying with him and during that period he had to take care of the child. He pleaded that the child had been brought up by him after the appellant left his house on 3-9-1963 with all love and care and that there was no reason to appoint the appellant as the guardian of the person of the child. The said petition which was pending before the learned District Judge, Shimoga, was later on transferred to the court of the Civil Judge, Chickmagalur, where it was numbered as Mis. 17 of 1964. Before that court the appellant made an application I. A. I. to hand over the custody of the child pending disposal of the case and by an order passed on 16-4-64, the custody of the child was handed over to the appellant. Thereafter, in that case, some evidence was also recorded. But on 12-11-1969 it was reported by the appellant that she had filed a fresh petition under S. 10 of the Guardians and Wards act for identical reliefs in G. W. Mis. 3 of 1969 on the file of the same court. At that stage, it was agreed by both the parties that the evidence already recorded in Mis. 17/64 could be treated as evidence in the G. W. Mis. 3169 and the earlier case be treated as closed. The Civil Judge accordingly closed the earlier case and proceeded with the later case. It may be mentioned here that the pleadings in both the cases are identical. After trial, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the petition on 27-7-70. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal.

( 4 ) SRI Rangaswami Iyengar the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the question of paramount importance in the matter of appointment of a guardian of a minor is the welfare of the child. He relied upon two decisions of the Punjab High Court reported in Smt. Avinash devi v. Dr. Khazan Singh Aneja, AIR. 1960 Pun. 327. and Captain Rattan Amol Singh v. Smt. Kamaljit Kaur, AIR. 1961 Pun. 51. . There is no dispute about this proposition. The parliament by enacting S. 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship act which should be read as supplemental to the Guardians and Wards act has affi