Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—This appeal under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is directed against the judgment of the Senior Sub Judge, Solan, District Solan, (exercising the powers of the District Judge) dated 31.8.1992.

2. It appears Kanchan Rani, hereinafter referred to as the wife, was married to Bhupinder Singh, appellant herein and hereinafter referred to as the husband, in the year 1984. Kumari Alka was born out of the wedlock on 4.11.1984. In the year 1990, the wife filed a petition under Sections 11 and 13(l)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned District Judge, Solan for declaration that her marriage with the husband is nullity and in the alternative for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The learned District Judge vide his judgment dated 28.11.1990 held that no legal marriage was solemnised between the parties.

3. The husband and wife thereafter started living separately. The wife is employed as nurse in the hospital in District Solan. The husband is a tailor by profession at Chamba.

4. On 3.12.1990, the wife moved a petition under Section 25 of the Act for the restoration of minor daughter Alka to her. The case of the wife is:

5. On 1.9.1990, the wife had gone to attend the marriage of her sister at Katwa in Jammu. The husband had also come to attend this marriage. On 3.1.1990, the husband forcibly took away Kumari Alka against her wishes. It is her case that Kumari Alka was admitted in St. Manys Convent School, Kasauli, and the wife could get admission with great efforts. The husband works as a tailor at Chamba and spend most of his income in drinking and gambling. The wife is an educated woman and employed as nurse. The husband being in impecunious condition is not entitled to the custody of the child Kumari Alka. The wife prays for the custody of Kumari Alka, minor daughter of the parties, in the interest of education and welfare of the child.

6. The husband resisted the petition, the allegations are controverted. The case of the husband is: Kumari Alka was residing with the husband at Chamba since her birth and is still living with him. Kumari Alka was attending the School at Chamba at the relevant time. It is his case that Kumari Alka is studying in Bhartiya Public School at Chamba since 1990 and is being looked after by the husband. The wife, it is pleaded, being a lady in service has no time to look after the child due to her busy schedule and it is not in the interest and welfare of the minor child to hand over her custody to the mother:

7. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the learned trial Judge: "(1) Whether welfare of the child would be better looked after by petitioner? OPP. (2) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction? OPR. (3) Relief

8. The learned trial Judge found that the welfare of the child lies in the custody of the wife, the objection of the husband that the Court at Solan has no jurisdiction has been over ruled. The petition was allowed and custody of the child was given to the mother by the impugned judgment.

9. Feeling dis-satisfied with the judgment of the learned trial Judge, the husband has filed the present appeal.

10. It may be noticed at this stage that the respondent-wife did not appear despite service. However, when this matter came up for hearing on 23.12.1999, this Court noticed that the mother has not shown any interest to enter appearance and contest the appeal. In the circumstances of the case, Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate, was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court in the matter. This Court also directed Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General to assist the Court by locating the whereabouts of the wife and serve a notice on her about the next date of hearing to enable her to appear in the Court with a counsel or give instructions to Mr. K.D. Sood, amicus curiae. The appeal was directed to be posted for hearing on 28.3.2000.

11. We notice that the wife is not presen