Welfare of minor is of paramount consideration.

This appeal has arisen out of an order dated 8-12-1989 made in G.W.O.P. No. 291 of 1986 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. The above said petition was filed under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (Act No. 32 of 1956) and under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

2. The respondent is the father of the minor girl Indirani. He filed the petition for the custody of the minor child from the custody of the maternal grandfather. He married the appellant's daughter Subbulakshmi on 27-3-1985 and out of the wedlock, a female child was born on 11-4-1986. The mother of the child died within few hours after the delivery. As the body of Subbulakshmi was taken to the house of the appellant for performing the funeral ceremonies, the child was retained by the appellant/maternal grandfather. But on account of the quarrel when the respondent demanded the return of the jewels and other articles belonging to his wife, the appellant refused to return the articles and the child also. The respondent is possessed of properties as he is the natural guardian of the minor child is entitled for the custody of the child.

3. In the counter filed, the maternal grandfather, the appellant herein has alleged that the marriage was performed by the appellant. Rs. 15,000/- was paid in cash and jewels also given to the bridegroom. There were trouble between the husband and wife. The appellant's daughter was living in his house. The respondent used to visit and go away. Even on 11-4-1986 after hearing about the death, the respondent came to the hospital and stayed for only few minutes. He did not show any interest in the child. On the other hand, he told to the appellant to throw the child in the dust-bin. After abandoning the child, he never asked for the custody. The child was being educated. The future for the child will be safe and better in the custody of the appellant rather than in the custody of the respondent.

4. The trial Court considered the evidence and the law on this aspect and found that if the custody was given to the respondent, the future of the child would not be affected and hence he was entitled for the custody.

5. Against the order of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, the appellant/grandfather of the minor child, has filed this appeal.

5A. The appeal was admitted on 19-2-1990. In C.M.P. No. 2134 of 1990, the stay of the operation of the order passed by the trial Court was granted on 19-2-1990 itself. The stay granted was made absolute on 30-3-1990. Now, the child is about twelve years old. The fact remains that it is almost an admitted fact that the child is from the birth with the appellant and even now continues to be with the appellant. Now in this background, we have to consider the right of the respondent as well as the welfare of the minor child.

6. There is no doubt that father is the natural guardian of the minor child. Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 reads as follows :

"6. Natural Guardians of a Hindu minor-

The natural guardians of a Hindu minor, in respect of the minor's person as well as in respect of the minor's property (excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family property), are-

(a) in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl - the father, and after him, the mother : Provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother;

(b) in the case of an illegitimate boy or an illegitimate unmarried girl - the mother, and after her, the father;

(c) in the case of a married girl - the husband;

Provided that no person shall be entitled to act as the natural guardian of a minor under the provisions of this section-

(a) if he has ceased to be a Hindu, or

(b) if he has completely and finally renounced the world by becoming a hermit (vanaprastha) or an ascetic (yati or sanyasi)."

Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 reads as follows :

"17. Matters to be