The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to enforce custody and guardianship rights under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and the paramount consideration of the child's welfare in resolving custody disputes.

ORDER

McNair, J. - This is an application by the father of a Guzerati boy for the restoration to him of his child, and that the respondent to the application, Mrs. Thompson, should be committed to prison for contempt) of Court. The notice of motion also asks that the provisions of an order made by the Court of Appeal may be sat aside. The matter has been before this Court on several occasions, and on this occasion has been heard by us on three or four different days. The child in question was born in February 1928, so that he is now 9 years old. His mother died in childbirth, and the respondent to this application oared for the child for some time with the father's concurrence. It is the common case of both sides that the child has only learned English. In 1935, differences between the petitioner and the respondent first came before this Court, the respondent refusing to make over the child to its natural father. The matter was heard by me, and I appointed the father the guardian of the child on 3rd July 1935 and I ordered Mrs. Thompson to make over the child to its father, That order was taken to the Court of Appeal, and on 29th July 1935 a consent decree was made, which is the order that it is now sought to be sat aside. That order varied the order which had been made by me in the Court of first instance, and directions were given relating to the child's schooling and holidays. Both this Court and the Court of Appeal were anxious that the child should not be deprived of the society of its natural father and of the lady who had tended it in its infancy, and orders were made to enable both parties to have access to the child.

2. The Court of Appeal further confirmed the order of this Court appointing the natural father guardian of the person of the minor. The order of the Court of Appeal was again varied on 9th March 1936 but that variation is not now material. In July 1936 there was an application headed : "Appeal No. 82 of 1935" in which the father asked for an order that Mrs. Thompson should be directed to make over his child forthwith to him. Although the application was so headed, the notice of motion calls upon the respondent to appear before the Judge who was taking interlocutory matters at that time, namely myself. The matter was mentioned to the Court of Appeal, and that Court directed that the application should be heard by me. The application eventually came before Panckridge J. who was then taking the interlocutory list, and he made an order for the minor to be handed over to his father on the following day. The order then made was as follows:

Upon the applicant by his advocate undertaking to act on the medical advice of Lieut-Col. Denham-White and not to send the minor to school, and also undertaking to get a report in writing from the said Lieut.-Col. Denham- White, it is ordered that the said minor be handed over by the said Mrs. Marguerita Thompson to his father, the applicant, by to-morrow and it is further ordered that the said minor be sent away to a healthy place for change of air for such period and at such time as may be advised by the said Lieut-Col. Denham-White.

3. The petitioner's case is that having been appointed the guardian of his child, he is entitled to the custody of the child and to make all general arrangements on that child's behalf. He alleges that the child was kept from him from May until August 1936; that on 25th August, in accordance with Panckridge J.'s order, the child was returned to him, but on 28th August the boy was again found with Mrs. Thompson and has not been back to his father since. The petitioner alleges that the child was taken from him by Mrs. Thompson. Mrs. Thompson on the other hand states that the child ran away from its father. The Advocate-General on behalf of the applicant has referred to a number of authorities in support of his contention that the respondent is guilty of contempt of Court in interfering with the rights of the petitioner who is not only the natural gu