Welfare of the minor is of paramount consideration.

1. The application has been filed under Sec. 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with O.4, Rule 8 of the Original Sides Rules for a direction to the respondent to produce minor Piyush before the Court and grant his interim custody to the applicant.

2. The original Petition has been filed under Secs.3 and 7 to 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act read with O.21, Rules 2 and 3 of the High Court’s Original Side Rules for the appointment of the petitioner as the guardian of minor Piyush.

3. The petitioner is the maternal grandfather of the minor. The respondent is the father. The case of the petitioner is as follows: His daughter Archana Goel and the respondent were married on 22.1.1999 at Chennai. They were living along with the respondent’s family members at No.l, Third Lane, Baroda Street, West Mambalam, Chennai- 600 033. Piyusyh was born to them on 22.2.2000. Ever since her marriage, the respondent and his family members were harassing her with demand for more and more dowry. The petitioner left no stone unturned to meet the demands of the respondent and his family members. The respondent’s greed for dowry was insatiable and Archana’s life became more and more miserable due to this. The harassment culminated in the murder of Archana on 30.1.2001 by the respondent and his family members. The respondent’s parents and sisters were arrested by the Inspector of Police, R-3 Police Station, Chennai. They were subsequently released on bail. They tried to tamper with the investigation with the active assistance of an Inspector of Police in an attempt to convert the murder into a case of suicide. The petitioner’s son Rajesh Kumar Goel filed Criminal O.P. No.2656 of 2001 before this Court. By order dated 27.2.2002 this Court directed the investigation of the case to be handed over to C.B. C.I.D. Chennai, observing that all was not well with the investigation. Pursuant to the said transfer of the investigation, the respondent and his family members were rearrested. The petitioner himself filed H.C.P. No.375 of 2001 seeking the production and custody of his grandson Piyush. By order dated 30.3.2001 a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the petition on t he ground that it was not the correct forum for claiming custody of the minor. The bail order was cancelled. This was also confirmed by the High Court. Subsequently, the respondent was released on bail on 25.7.2001. From the manner in which the petitioner’s daughter Archana was harassed and murdered in gruesome manner for greed of dowry, it is beyond doubt that the life of the minor itself is in danger. Further, the respondent and his family members having been actively involved in the criminal case, th e atmosphere surrounding the minor child is vitiated and is definitely not conducive for the healthy up bringing of the child. Mere physical upkeep of the child cannot be the lone criterion to build the well-being of the child. The atmosphere in the residence of the respondent being negatively surcharged, it is the least conducive place to a child to grow up in life. The petitioner, his two sons and their three children are residing together and constitute a healthy joint family. They are financially well placed. Therefore, it is extremely conducive for the well-being of the child both physically and mentally to grow with them. The respondent, who was actively involved in the gruesome murder of Archana, is unfit to continue as guardian of minor Piyush. Further, his act having arisen due to extreme greed, absolute hatred and malice to deceased Archana, it is very unlikely that the respondent will treat the child any different. By conduct the respondent has rendered himself incompetent and incapable of being the guardian of the minor. The respondent’s mother is an aged person, who will not be able to take care of the child, which at the time of filing the petition in August, 2001 was only 18 months old. This apart, the respondent and his family members being charged under