Welfare of child is of paramount consideration.

This appeal is against the order passed in Guardian O.P. No.194 of 1988 on the file of the District Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.

.2. The petitioner’s case is as follows; The petitioner was working as a School Assistant in Pegalur in Hosur taluk. The first respondent is his mother-in-law. Second respondent is the son of the first respondent. The petitioner has married the daughter of the first respondent and three children were bom to them. The wife of the petitioner died on 17. 1988. The respondents who came to the condolence, took the children of the petitioner saying that they will keep mem with them and bring them for the 11th day ceremony. They have took mem to their village and brought them back on 27. 1988 to the petitioner. Thereafter, they have assured the petitioner that they will bring the children for the 30th day ceremony. Neither the respondent nor their children came to the 30th day ceremony. The first respondent is aged 85 years. She is a widow. She is showing interest in the properties of the children of the petitioner then the children. The respondents have filed the suit against the petitioner for partition using the name of the son of the petitioner as plaintiff. It will be in the interest of the children that they should live with the petitioner. Hence the petitioner.

3. The first respondent in her counter contends as follows: The death of the daughter of the first respondent was caused in suspicious circumstances. The body was handed over only after post-mortem. The first respondent has given a petition to the Tahsildar suspecting foul-play in the death of her daughter against the petitioner and his sisters. But that petition was closed without a proper enquiry. The third child of the petitioner died on 6. 1989. Only two children are with the first respondent. It is not in the interest of the children to be with the petitioner. The petitioner has married a second wife. If the custody of the children are given to him, the children would undergo ill-treatment in the hands of the step-mother. The petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. On the above pleadings, an enquiry was held and the learned District Judge has held that the petitioner is entitled to the custody of the children and has passed the impugned order.

5. Aggrieved over the same, the 1st respondent has come forward with this appeal.

6. The appellant herein is the grandmother of the two surviving children of her daughter who is the wife of the petitioner and who died on 17. 1988. The petitioner has filed the petition under the Guardian and Wards Act seeking a direction to the appellant herein to hand over the custody of the minor children who are his daughter and son contending that when the respondents in O.P, came to the condolence of his wife, they took the children with them stating that they will bring them for the 11th day ceremony and actually they have brought the children for the 11th day ceremony and that the respondents in the O.P., who took the children with mem with an assurance that they will bring the children for the 30th day ceremony of the death of his wife, have failed to fulfil their assurance and are keeping the children with them and refuse to send them to him and therefore he has filed the O.P. The respondents resist the claim of the petitioner by contending that they suspected a foul-play in the death of the wife of the petitioner and had even given a petitioner to the Tahsildar and there were proposals for the petitioner marrying a second wife and it is only in the welfare and interest of the children, they are having the custody of the children. The learned Judge who held an enquiry has passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner is entitled to have the custody of the minor children since he was not disqualified from having their custody and since he was the natural guardian father of the minor children.

.7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that the father’s right for