( 1 ) THIS Revision Application is directed against an order made by the learned Assistant Judge Baroda dismissing the application of the petitioner for interim custody of the minor Narmada. The circumstances under which the application came to be filed by the petitioner may be briefly stated as follows.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the mother of Narmada who is 79 years old. The case of the petitioner was that Narmada was betrothed to opponent No. 4 who is the son of opponents Nos. 2 and 3. Opponents Nos. 2 and 3 wanted to show Narmada to the residents of their village and they accordingly took away Narmada with them on 4th June 1961. After about four or five days the petitioners son went to bring back Narmada but opponents Nos. 2 to 4 refused to send Narmada back to the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon filed a petition in the District Court Baroda under sec. 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 praying for an order for the return of the minor to the custody of the petitioner. The petition was based on the allegation that the petitioner was the natural guardian of the person of Narmada and that Narmada had been removed from the custody of the petitioner by opponents Nos. 2 to 4. Opponents Nos. 2to 4 resisted the petition and contended that Narmada had been married to opponent No. 4 according to Hindu rites on 19th May 1961 and that a sum of Rs. 3 100 had been paid to the petitioner and her son in consideration of the marriage and that opponent No. 4 being the husband was therefore the natural guardian of the person of Narmada and was entitled to the custody of Narmada. Opponents Nos. 2 to 4 alleged that the object of the petition was to obtain the custody of the girl with a view to selling her off to another person and the petition was therefore liable to be rejected.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the petition an application was made by the petitioner for interim custody of Narmada. The application was opposed on behalf of opponents Nos. 2 to 4. Various affidavits were filed on behalf of both the parties and some documentary evidence was also produced. The learned Assistant Judge after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that a prima facie case of marriage was established on behalf of opponents Nos. 2 to 4 and that opponent No. 4 was therefore prima facie the natural guardian of the person of Narmada. The learned Assistant Judge also felt that it was not in the interests of Narmada to keep her in the custody of the petitioner even for a temporary period for it was not improbable that the petitioner might again sell the girl to another party for a large amount. The learned Assistant Judge considered the suggestion made on behalf of the petitioner that even if it was considered not to be in the interests of Narmada that her custody should be given over to the petitioner Narmada should be kept in a remand home and rejected the suggestion on the ground that there was no reason why opponent No. 4 who was the natural guardian of the person of Narmada should be deprived of the custody of Narmada merely because the petitioner had approached the Court for custody of Narmada being given to her. The learned Assistant Judge also observed that it would not be in the interests of Narmada to keep her in the atmosphere of a place like the remand home as though she were a criminal The learned Assistant Judge accordingly took the view that the custody of Narmada should remain with opponents Nos. 2 to 4 and dismissed the application of the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon filed the present Revision Application before this Court.

( 4 ) MR. R. C. Mankad learned advocate on behalf of opponents Nos. 2 to 4 urged as a preliminary objection that the application of the petitioner was not maintainable and that the petitioner was not entitled to apply for interim custody of Narmada during the pendency of the petition. The argument of Mr. R. C. Mankad was that the power to make interlocutory order for interim custody of a mino