Second marriage by father is no ground to deny guardianship of minor child.

Appellants 1 and 2 are the sons of the third appellant Andalammal. Andalammal had a daughter by name, Vijaya. who was given in marriage to the respondent Srinivasan on 210. 1988. Minor Monisha was born to Vijaya on 211. 1997. Shortly within days after delivery, Vijaya died on 211. 1997 Monisha is being brought up by the appellant herein. Vijaya was working in child Development Project Centre and because of her death, the child is entitled to certain monetary benefits by way of pension, gratuity etc., Apart from that, she house property also stands in the name of Monisha, Srinivasan father of Monisha had instituted proceedings in G.W.O.P.No.65 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu under Sec.25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 seeking custody of the child.

2. Thelearned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, after enquiry, came to the conclusion that the father, being the natural guardian, in prima facie entitled to the custody of the child and accordingly ordered the appellants herein to hand over the child to the respondent herein, Srinivasan. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Principal District Judge, the respondents in the G.W.O.P. have come forward with the instant C.M.A.

3. Heard both the sides. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants have the natural love and affection and wherewithal to look after the child. According to them, one another sister of appellants 1 and 2, by name, Santhi also died long back leaving behind her two minor daughters by name, Anitha and Sunitha and that the appellants have been bringing about these two children for more than fourteen years. According to them though aged the third appellant is rebust. Appellants 1 and 2 are the earning members and they would be in a position to look after the child well. They also claims that the respondent-father had taken a second wife and therefore, it may not be conducive to the interest of the child, if the child is allowed to be brought up by her father.

4. Onthe other hand, the respondent has contended that the third appellant Andalammal is very old and the first respondent is suffering with some lepramatus disease. The second respondent is not an earning member.

5. A Hindu father is the natural guardian of the children during their minority and has prima facie a paramount right to their custody and must be given such custody unless he is unfit or there are other circumstances. But, the welfare of the minor child is a very important matter for consideration and the interest and welfare of the minor are even paramount to the rights of the father.

6. The principal considerations or tests which have been laid down under Sec.17 of the Guardian and Wards Act in order to secure the welfare of the minor are equally applicable in considering the welfare of the minor under Sec.25 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The father marrying a second wife is not a valid ground for his disqualification. Even the fact that the first wife was not properly treated is not a ground for presuming that the child will not be properly looked after by the father.

7. There is a dispute regarding the minors property. The learned Principal District Judge has held that both the contesting parties are interested in the properties which would yield benefits to the custodian of the minor. Even in such a case, the father, being a near relative then the grandmother and maternal uncles, have knowledge over them to administer the properties. It is not as if the minor is in the custody of the appellant for a long time. After all, the child is in their custody for 2 1/2 years. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the father had not evinced any interest in the welfare of the minor, in that he had not even visited the minor even once after the death of his wife. It is evidence that a litigious atmosphere is prevailing between the appellants and the respondent, and therefore, the respondent m