N.M. KASHLIWAL, J.—In the present case Shri P.N. Datt has filed a caveat on behalf of the respondent. On 20th November, 1978, after hearing the case for sometime at the admission stage I suggested both the parties to make full arguments of the main appeal. Both the learned counsel agreed to argue the case in full. Thus the case was heard at length on 20th and 21st Nov., 1978.

2. This is an appeal under sec. 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1890) against the order of the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, dated 30th March, 1978, whereby an application filed by the respondent under sec. 10 of the Act, 1890, has been allowed declaring him as the guardian of the person of minor girl Mona till she attains majority.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the parties were married on 19th January, 1971. The appellant gave birth to a girl on 26th January, 1972. The relation between the parties soon after the marriage became strained The appellant Snehlata who is doctor by profession and is at present living in United Kingdom for further studies left her husbands house and started living with her parents when the child was only five months old. When the respondent and his mother refused to send the newly born child, the appellant took the help of the court and moved an application in this regard in the court of Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur, on 19th June, 1972. The respondent handed over the custody of the child to the appellant before the court on 22nd June, 1972 and since then the child has been continuously living with her mother, the appellant, and in her absence wish the appellants parent. In November, 1974, the appel-lant obtained study leave from the Government and proceeded to England for M.R.C.P. course and since then for the most part she is living in England and is still there for study on sanctioned leave. Duing the course of arguments it was informed that the appellant shall complete her studies in November, 1979. During the absence of the appellant she has left the child to the care of her father Shri Kiran Babu at Jaipur. It is not disputed that the girl Mona is at present receiving education in M.G.D. School, which is one of the best institution of the city and stood first in her class. The girl was also called by the learned District Judge and on questions being put to her on 3rd November, 1977 the following observations were recorded by the Court:

^^cPps dks cqykdj iwNk x;k rks mlus viuk uke eksuk crk;kA o VkbZuh VkVl Ldwy esa i<+rh gSA mlus Lusgyrk dks flLVj crk;k o Jherh mek ekFkqj tks Lusgyrk dh eka gS] ftudh xksn esa cPph vkbZ Fkh] dks dgk fd og esjh eEeh gSA eSa buds lkFk jgwWxhA lk;y ds iwNus ij fd eSa dkSu gWw dgk fd eSa ugha tkurhA**

4. The appellant came to India in March, 1976, for a short visit and the respondent succeeded in obtaining a decree of divorce from the court of District Judge, Jaipur City on March 9, 1978. An application was filed under sec. 10 of the Act, 1890, for appointing and declaring the respondent as guardian of the minor Mona. The application was hotly contested by the appellant. The learned District Judge by his order dated 30th March, 1978, held that it was in the welfare of the minor Mona to remain under the guardianship of the respondent who was her father, appointed and declared the respondent to be the guardian till she attains the majority and further gave a direction that the minor Mona to be returned to the custody of the respondent. This appeal is directed against the above order of the learned District Judge, dated 30th March, 1978.

5. Mr. Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that admittedly the minor at present was in the custody of the parents of the appellant Dr. Snehlata and it was incumbent upon the respondent under sec. 10(1)(d) to make them as a party to the application under sec. 10. No order or direction could at all have been given for the custody of the minor in favour of the respondent without imp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document