The welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in custody matters, and the preferential right of the natural guardian, the father, should be subordinated to the best interests of the child.

( 1 ) IN this appeal preferred by the mother under Section 47 (c) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for short, 'the Act', the legality and correctness of the order dated 13/07/2001 passed in G and WC No. 5 of 2000 on the file of the court of the Principal Civil Judge, Senior division and CJM, Shimoga, for short, 'the court below', allowing the petition filed by the respondent-father under Section 25 of the Act holding that the respondent is entitled to have the custody of the minor shreyash, by name and directing the appellant to hand over the custody of the minor to the respondent on 31-7-2001 is called in question.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief may be noted first and they are as follows : The respondent who is the father of the minor filed g and WC No. 5 of 2000 under Section 25 of the Act alleging that he married the appellant on 29-1-1993 at Kengapura Village as per the customs prevailing in the community and from out of the wedlock the minor was born on 2-8-1993. Even before the the parties were closely related.

( 3 ) DURING the year 1999, the minor was studying in 2nd standard in Sri Ayappa higher Primary School in Shimoga. On 25- 11 -1999. the appellant left the matrimonial home without any justification and consent of the respondent and in his absence and without informing anyone else. Surprised by the sudden disappearance of the appellant from the matrimonial house, the respondent, the parents of the appellant and well- wishers of the respondent went in search of the appellant. They found the appellant in the company of her paramour one P. Ismail, by name who is an Assistant Master at honganur in Channapatna Taluk, living in adultery with him. The said P. Ismail was earlier a neighbour of the parents of the appellant at Kogalur Village. Under the circumstance the respondent filed M. C. No. 14 of 2000 under Section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce. The appellant despite service of notice on her on 24-1- 2000, did not appear and contest the case. In the circumstance, the Court granted decree of divorce on the basis of the evidence adduced by the respondent. However, after the disposal of M. C. No. 14 of 2000, the appellant has filed an application in that M. C. for setting aside the ex parte decree and that application is pending.

( 4 ) EVENAFTER25-LL-1999, theminorwas in the custody of the respondent residing in shimoga. The appellant filed a complaint alleging offences punishable under Sections 498a, 323, 504, 506 (2), 307 of IPC read with sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The local police having registered that complaint as Crime No. 39 of 2000 arrested the respondent and he was in judicial custody for 20 days before he was released on bail. Taking advantage of that situation, the appellant took away the minor child on 21-9- 2000 forcibly and without informing the members of the respondent family. The respondent so alleging and contending that since the minor is aged 8 years, he being the natural guardian of the minor is entitled to custody of the minor; he wants to give good education to the minor; the minor is the only. son: the appellant being immoral lady cannot be entrusted with the custody of the minor filed G and WC No. 5 of 2000 before the Court below under Section 25 of the Act,

( 5 ) ON service of notice, the appellant who was the respondent before the Court below, put in appearance and contested the case by filing a statement of objections. In the statement of objections she denied all material allegations made by the respondenl herein except the factum of marriage and birth of the minor on 2-8-1993 from out of the wedlock and the fact of the respondent obtaining a decree of divorce in M. C. No. 14 of 2000. But, it was alleged that that decree was obtained by playing fraud. However. she admitted that she lodged a complaint with local police alleging dowry harassment and other matrimonial offences against the respondent and the same was registered as crime No.