Welfare of minor is paramount consideration.

The petitioner in this petition is the mother of the two minors, viz., 1. Merlin Diana and 2. Maria Roshan and the wife of the respondent, Babu Royan. She filed this petition under Secs.7 to 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for appointing herself as guardian of the two minors aged about 5 years and 3 years respectively and direct entrustment of custody of the two minors to her from the respondent.

2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is employed as Administrative Manager, Resorts International Private Limited, Century Plaza, Mount Road, Madras-18 and respondent who was employed as Manager in Sakthi Finance, Shastri Nagar, Madras now working in the said company at their Coimbatore branch on transfer. He is working the said company for the last few months.

3. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent took place on 23.1.1984 at Coimbatore and they are governed by the Special Marriage Act, being Christians. The two children abovenamed were born on 17.8.1985 and 18.1.1988 respectively. They were residing ordinarily with their parents till recently at No.43, K.M.N.Street, Mandavellipakkam, Madras 28. A dispute has arisen between parties and now the present petition is filed as above for appointing the petitioner as the guardian and for entrustment of the two children. It is the case of the petitioner that the children are too young, being tender age therefore they should be only in the custody of their mother and that the paramount of the children demand that their custody should only be with the petitioner. The petitioner getting a monthly income of Rs.3,000 by way of salary and hence she would be able maintain the children properly and that she is the fit and proper person to be appointed guardian of the children.According to the petitioner, the respondent drove her out house forcibly and taken her to Palani and forcibly obtained her signature on a stamped paper without disclosing the contents. The petitioner also issued notice respondent in the first week of April, 1991 through her counsel. In the said notice, counsel has stated thus:

“My client states that whatever be the differences that you may have with her, you ignore the paramount welfare of the children. My client, therefore requests you gracious enough to allow the children to be with her. My client is fully aware that her children need also the father. You are always at liberty to have the access for the children all through the day. My client states that in due course of time, you will certainly realise that you done greater harm to your children than to her by your unwanted acts. My client states you should independently bestow your thoughts, on the welfare of your children, keep interest as paramount consideration and arrange to sort out your difference with her. client is ready and willing to meet you at any common place for discussion. My client that if matters are allowed to drift further, it will only lead to unnecessary litigation which not be beneficial to any of you. My client should not be driven to the necessity of moving Court for custody of her children or have access. My client has been informed which hopes to be false that you intend leaving Madras with the children just to prevent her having access or custody of the children. It is needless to state that it will be against interest and welfare of the children. The school in which the first child is studying in Matriculation School, one of the foremost in the State of Tamil Nadu. My client is of the that the children should have education at Madras.” According to the petitioner, the respondent had forcibly removed the children from and taken them to Coimbatore, inspite of the notice given by the petitioner. According petitioner, the respondent is not the fit and proper person to bring up the children and the petitioner has got sufficient means to maintain herself as well as to look after children in good comfort and to given them healthy good life and a good education.