Father if can substitute another person to be guardian of minor child during his life time.

The respondents before the lower court are the appellants herein. The present appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 1. 1992 in G.W.O.P.No.156 of 1990 on the file of the District Judge, Chengalpattu.

.2. The respondent herein, who is the father of the minor Ramachandran alias Anandan now aged about 4 1/2 years, has filed the Guardian Wards O.P.No.156 of 1990 under Sec.25(1) of the Guard-ian and Wards Act, read with Sec.6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, to direct the respondents/appellants herein, who are the maternal grand parents of the minor, to hand over the custody of the minor to the respondent herein.

3. The short facts are, the respondent married the appellants’ daughter Dhanalakshmi on 12. 1987 at Villivakkam and that the marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and Custom. The respondent is employed in Tamil Nadu Civil Supply Corporation at Kancheepuram, which is his native place. They were living happily for two years after the marriage at Kancheepuram. The minor child was born on 7.2 1988 at Rakki Hospital, Ambattur. The respondent was then transferred to Ponnamallee and was living with his wife at the residence of the appellants at Ambattur. The respondent was again transferred to Chengal-pattu. Hence, he has once again moved to Kancheepuram with his wife and the minor. On 4. 1990, the respondent’s wife got injured in the stove fire accident and was admitted to Kancheepuram Headquarters Hospital. In spite of best treatment given to her, the hospital authorities advised the respondent to take her to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital for further treatment and for plastic surgery. But, on 25. 1990, she expired in the Kilpauk Medical College Hospital. The dead body was handed over to the respondent after postmortem. The body was taken to Ambattur at the request of the appellants. The appellants, with the aid of police and under threat and coercion, forced the respondent to sign in a blank stamp paper. The appellants are very poor people and have no means of livelihood. The minor is of tender age and has to be admitted in a school and has to be given proper nourishment. The respondent is very much attached to the minor and he alone is the fit and proper person to maintain and have custody of the minor. The respondent is now working as a Helper in the Tamil Nadu Civil Supply Corporation and earning Rs.1,200 per month. He can properly bring up the minor. The appellants are not entitled to have the custody of the minor. The respondent issued notice to the appellants on 6. 1990. He issued another notice on 17. 1990 seeking custody of the minor child. The appellants, though received the notice, have not complied with the demand. Hence, the respondent has filed the above Guardian and Wards O.P. for the relief mentioned above.

.4. The appellants, as respondents, resisted the petition by filing a counter. Though several contentions have been raised in the counter, it is relevant if 1 refer to the contentions which are necessary. According to the appellants the respondent never cared to look to the child’s wants. The minor child is in the custody of the appellants ever since its birth. It is false to state that they did not provide necessary food and medicine. The respondent cannot maintain the minor as he is living separately after he got divided from his father, step mother and step sister. The respondeni himself has to look for someone else for his daily bread. The respondent is incapable of attending on the tender child. The welfare of the minor shall be the paramount consideration and no person shall be entitled to the guardianship by virtue of the provisions of the abovesaid Act or any law relating to guardianship if the Court is of opinion that the guardianship will not be for the welfare of the minor. There are not bona fides on the part of the respondent. It will not be in the interest of the minor child to appoint the respondent as the guardian of the min