The welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in the appointment of a guardian, and the father's right as natural guardian is subject to exceptions based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

1. This is an appeal filed under S. 47(a) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the 1890 Act). It is directed against the judgment dated 15-7-1986 passed by Shri Bharat Prasad Sharma, IVth Additional District Judge, Gaya, in Guardian Case No. 4 of 1985 / 163 of 1983.

2. It appears that originally one Raj Nath Mahto, Maternal grandfather of the three minor girls, had filed this case before the learned District Judge, Gaya, under S. 7 of the 1890 Act for being appointed as their guardian. It was registered as Guardian Case No. 163 of 1983. Subsequently on his death the present appellant his widow has been substitued in his place. From the petition filed by Raj Nath Mahto before the learned District Judge it would appear that one Bharati Kumari was his daughter who was married to the present respondent in the year 1976. At that time, the respondent was working as Chargeman in the C. L. W. Chittranjan, Eastern Railway and Bharati Kumari, the deceased daughter, was auxiliary Nurse Midwife in Jamtara Block, she however, resided at Chittarajan with her husband. Three daughters were born to her out of this wed-lock. However, since Bharati Kumari herself was in service, she had left the three daughters under the guardianship the present appellant who was her mother. It was further urged that the three daughters were born at Gaya and they had been looked after and brought up by the present appellant. The respondent was a man of bad temperament. Bharati had sufficient bank account with her which the respondent wanted to be transferred in his name. On her refusal, he was annoyed and he killed her by burning her with petrol on 5-5-1983 for which U. D. Case No. 13 of 1983 was registered at Chittaranjan Police Station. The three daughters, namely, Radha alias Bulbul, Laxmi Kumari and Sunita Kumari are living with the present appellant. It was, accordingly, prayed that Raj Nath Mahto the petitioner be appointed as guardian of the minor girls to look after their person and property.

3. The case of the present respondent, before the learned Court below, was that he is the father and natural guardian of his minor daughters and he had happy conjugal life with Bharati who accidentally died leaving behind the three daughters. He further denied that Bharati had any separate bank account or that he ever demanded the transfer of her money to him or that he even mal-treated and threatened her (Bharati). He had asserted before the learned Court below that he had full love and affection for her three minor daughters and he wanted to keep them under his own guardianship. He has denied that the girls were ever born at Gaya of that his wife Bharati ever entrusted the present appellant to look after them and for upbringing them. They were living with their parents till the death of Bharati Kumari and were taken away by the present appellant surreptitiously for which he had filed a case before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Asansole, West Bengal. The learned IVth Additional District Judge, Gaya, after hearing the parties dismissed the petition filed on behalf of Raj Nath Mahto and continued by the present appellant. He held that here was no reason to deprive the present respondent of his right for the custody and guardianship of his minor daughters. Accordingly, he directed the present appellant to deliver the custody of the girls to the respondent at the earliest. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.

4. In this appeal it has been contended that all the witnesses of the appellant had supported her claim as will appear from paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment. The earned Court below should have held that the minor girls were brought up and nursed by the appellant since their birth. The learned lower appellate Court has based his judgment on the 1890 Act which is not applicable since the procedure as contained in the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the