The judgment established that a mother's remarriage does not automatically disqualify her from being the legal guardian of her children from a previous marriage, emphasizing the societal importance of supporting widowed women's remarriage for the welfare of their children.

1. The appellants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the respondent. They filed the Guardian O.P. No. 105 of 1994 before the Principal District Court, Tuticorin for appointing themselves as the Guardian of the minors Venkatesh and Dinesh Babu and for direction directing the respondent herein to handover the custody of the minors to the appellants. The case of the appellants is that the respondent married the only son of the Appellants on 9.7.1986. The abovesaid minors were born out of the said wedlock. Their only son died on 13.5.1990 and thereafter the respondent was living jointly with the appellants along with the children. Suddenly, the respondent left the house in April, 1991 and refused to come back and started to live with her parents at Kovilpatti. The respondent got married on 25.10.1993 without informing the appellants and since she got remarried, she cannot be the legal guardian for the minors.

2. The respondent herein filed counter stating that the appellants gave troubles and tortured the respondent and her children stating that they are the main cause for the death of their only son and drove her away from the house. She joined with her parents and she is living with them. So far as the Insurance amounts are concerned, the appellants have deposited the Insurance amount which they received due to the death of their son in favour of the minors. The respondent on her own accord has deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the interest of the minor children and the respondent is giving good education to the children. Since the minor children had all along been with the care of the mother, they may not leave the mother, the respondent herein and live with the appellants. The second marriage of the respondent will not in any way affect the welfare of the children since the second husband married the respondent fully knowing about the status of the respondent and also about the existence of the two minor children.

3. The trial Court after elaborately considering the evidence has dismissed the Guardian O.P. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred the appeal. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the respondent has got remarried after the death of her husband. Since the minor children are begotten through the first husband, naturally, the second husband may not have so much of love and affection and it may cause hardship to the minor children. Further having got remarried the respondent is disqualified to be the legal guardian for her children through the first husband.

4. In view of the above contentions, I am of the view that there is no need for any elaborate discussion of the evidence. Merely by remarriage, it cannot be said that the mother would lose the love and affection for her children through the first husband. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 do not disclose any incidents to show that the respondent is not bestowing any interest in the welfare of the minor children. It is represented that both the minor children are attending the school and the respondent is taking care of them’. In the absence of any material before the Court, to come to the conclusion that the respondent had not bestowed any interest in the welfare of the minors, she will continue to be the legal guardian of the minors. Perhaps the only grievance of the appellants against the respondent is her second marriage. The respondent will be aged about 25 to 27 years, since the minors are aged about 7 and 4 years old. When she lost her husband in the prime youth of her life, it may be very difficult for her to pull on her life all alone having two minor children. Hence there is nothing wrong on her part to get herself remarried. Whatever said and done still, it is clear, in the society it will be very difficult for a woman to live alone and lead the life especially without either the care of her family members or a male member. Admittedly she cannot rely on the help of the appellants herein or her