The welfare of the child is paramount in custody disputes, and the provisions of personal law should be applied consistently with the Guardians and Wards Act. The father's natural guardianship does not entitle him to custody solely based on legal rights.

M. Duraiswamy, J.

1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises against the fair and final order, dated 18.4.2007 passed in G.W.O.P. No.412 of 2005, on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore.

2. The Appellant is the husband of the Respondent. The Appellant filed a Petition under Section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 for appointment of the guardian for his minor daughter Rameeja Amrin, aged 5 years and also to direct the Respondent to hand-over the minor daughter to him.

3. The brief case of the Appellant as follows:

According to the Appellant, he is the husband of the Respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 22.8.1999 at Coimbatore. Out of their wedlock, a female child was born on 2.6.2000 and a male child was born to them on 19.5.2004. The Appellant had previously married one Halimunnisha in the year 1996. Through her a female child was born to them. Thereafter, they got divorce as per the Mahomedan Law, leaving the child with his first wife. The Respondent had already married me Syed Rizwan Ryaz previously and through him a female child was born to them. Thereafter, they got divorce leaving the daughter in the custody of the Respondent. Subsequently, the Appellant and the Respondent had married on 22.8.1999. Due to some misunderstanding, in the month of June 2004, the Respondent without informing the Appellant left the matrimonial home with her daughter born through her first husband. The Respondent has neglected to maintain the female child properly. The Respondent did not send the daughter to the School in the month of August, September and October 2004. The Respondent has been ill-treating his daughter. In the mean time, in the month of April 2005, the misunderstanding between the Appellant and the Respondent got aggravated and they got separated. At the time of separation, the Appellant took the minor child Rameeja Amrin with him. The Respondent took the minor child Sahid Adam with her. The Respondent preferred a Police Complaint on 5.5.2005 and also lodged another Complaint in the third week of May 2005 before Podanur Police Station. The Police Officials at the influence of the Respondent compelled the Appellant to hand-over the female child to her in the Police Station itself. Accordingly, the Appellant handed over the custody of her daughter to the Respondent. The Appellant's action of handing over the female child was not voluntary. On 21.5.2005, the Appellant sent a legal notice demanding the custody of the child. The Appellant is doing independent Civil construction and he is also doing Engineering Consultancy. The Respondent demanded the Appellant to execute a Settlement Deed in respect of the house in her favour. As per the Mahomedan Law, the mother is entitled to the custody of her male child until the age of 7 years and in the case of female child until she attains puberty. In default of the mother, the mother's mother or father's mother or sister are entitled to the custody of the child. The Respondent has lost the right of custody since she neglected to take proper care of the child.

4. The case of the Respondent in brief is as follows:

According to the Respondent, under the Mahomedan Law, the mother is entitled to custody of the minor daughter until the minor girl attains puberty. The alleged ill-treatment of the minor daughter Rameeja Amrin stated by the Appellant is false. The Respondent never ill-treated the minor daughter. The Respondent is looking after the miner daughter properly. The Respondent is able, to give education, food and clothing to the minor. The Appellant has no right to claim the custody of the minor daughter. Since the Appellant is the natural guardian of the minor, he need not be appointed as guardian of the minor. In these circumstances, the Respondent prayed for dismissal of G.W.O.P.

5. Before the Family Court, on the side of the Appellant four witnesses were examined and 21 documents, Exs.P1 to P21 were marked and on the side of the Respondent, she was ex