P.K. Lohra, J.

Appellant has laid this appeal under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short 'the Act') to assail the impugned order dated 09.02.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sojat District Pali (for short 'the learned Trial Court'). By the order impugned, learned Trial Court has allowed the petition of the respondent-mother for interim custody of her minor sons Kiran and Vivek respectively.

2. The facts apposite for the purpose of this appeal are that respondent initiated proceedings before the learned Trial Court for guardianship and custody of her two minor sons Kiran and Vivek aged 6 and 4 years respectively. It was, inter alia, averred in the petition that they are in custody of the appellant who is grand mother of the minor kids. The respondent stacked her claim for custody of minor children as their natural gaurdian after death of their father. Along with petition for guardianship and custody, the respondent also filed a separate petition under Section 12 of the Act craving interim custody of the minor children. Asserting her right as a natural guardian of both the minor children after death of her husband, the respondent has also pleaded some relevant facts for craving interim custody of the minor children in their welfare.

3. The petition is contested by the appellant precisely on the ground that respondent has remarried, therefore, it is not in the welfare of the minor kids to grant their interim custody to her. In the reply, it is also pleaded that respondent in presence of Panchayat has disowned both the minor children and now after entering into matrimony with someone else, it would not be in the interest of kids to grant interim custody to the respondent-mother.

4. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the rival parties, by the order impugned, allowed the petition of the respondent under Section 12 of the Act and granted her interim custody of the children.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order.

6. The pivotal question which has emerged in this appeal for judicial scrutiny lies in a narrow compass. While examining the legality and propriety of the impugned order, this Court is required to see whether remarriage of a mother is an embargo for claiming interim custody of her minor children. There remains no quarrel that after death of father, mother is a natural guardian of her minor children but upon a conjoint reading of the provisions of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the provisions of the Act, it becomes abundantly clear that mother cannot claim primacy for guardianship and custody of minors at the costs of jeopardising welfare of the children. The concern of the Court while granting interim custody of a minor child is to see the moral and ethical welfare of the child. In the instant case, while opposing prayer of the respondent for interim custody of minor children, appellant has not pleaded any material fact to show that grant of interim custody of minor kids to her would not be in moral and ethical welfare of the minor. The only reason which is sought to be cited by the appellant is remarriage of the respondent. In the considered opinion of this Court, factum of remarriage of the mother cannot disentitle her to claim interim custody of her minor kids. The facts pleaded by the appellant for castigating the respondent in neglecting the kids or ignorant about the welfare of the kids are superfluous and that being so, aptly dealt with by the learned Trial Court in the impugned order. The learned Trial Court has also laid emphasis on a benevolent gesture shown by the respondent in parting with Rs. 1,00,000/- which she has received as compensation in accident claim case of her late husband who died in road accident. As a matter of fact, the respondent has deposited Rs. 50,000/- each for both the children in the fixed deposit out of the amount which she has received as compensation, is a sufficient proof to show her bona