The welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in guardianship matters, as provided in Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and Section 17 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890.

JUDGMENT :

S. Kannammal, J.

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 47 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 and Section 19(1) of Family Courts Act, 1984) against the Fair and Executable Order, dated 07.08.2014 passed in G.W.O.P.No.10 of 2013 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai.)

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree made in G.W.O.P No.10/2013, dated 04.08.2014 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as the petitioner and respondent.

3. Facts leading to the appeal are as follows:

The petitioner is the mother in law of the respondent. The petitioner’s daughter Nithya was given in marriage to the respondent on 04.09.2008. The respondent is none other than the own sister’s son of the petitioner’s husband Arumugam. After marriage both Nithya and the respondent settled at Tirupur. Out of wedlock, a male child by name Sanjeev was born on 17.08.2009. It is an admitted fact that the said Nithya died on 23.09.2011. The minor child was kept under the custody of petitioner as per the suggestions of the elders of the family. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner and her husband admitted the minor child in TVS school. After the death of said Nithya, the respondent married another lady on 19.01.2013 and no issue born to them. The petitioner wanted her to be appointed as guardian of the minor grand child Sanjeev and hence filed G.W.O.P No.10/2013.

4. The respondent herein, who is a natural guardian had filed a counter by denying all the allegations made by the petitioner and had sought for dismissal of the petition. After considering all the material facts the Family Court, Madurai passed an order by dismissing the petition in G.W.O.P No.10/2013.

5. Section 13 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, says welfare of minor to be paramount consideration. The said provision is extracted hereunder:

“(1) In the appointment or declaration of any person as guardian of a Hindu Minor by a court, the welfare of the Minor shall be the paramount consideration.

(2) No person shall be entitled to the guardianship by virtue of the provisions of this Act or of any law relating to Guardianship in marriage among Hindus, if the court is of opinion that his or her guardianship will not be for the welfare of the minor.”

6. Section 17 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, deals with Matters to be considered by the Court in appointing guardian. Section 17(1) of the said Act, is extracted hereunder:

“(1) In appointing or declaring the guardian of the minor, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be guided by what, consistently with the law to which the minor is subject, appears in the circumstances to be for the welfare of the minor.”

7. The Family Court, Madurai in its order in G.W.O.P.No.10/2013 has observed that the child was brought before the court for more than four occasions during enquiry and the minor child is very much affectionate towards his father, the respondent herein. The family court also observed that the minor son should at least have his father’s love and affection as he has lost his mother’s love and the said observation is very true and sustainable. Further, the minor child is all along with the custody of the father. The reasoning given by the Family Court, Madurai for the dismissal of G.W.O.P.No.10/2013 is also sustainable, hence no interference is called for.

8. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2014 passed in G.W.O.P.No.10 of 2013 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai. No Costs.

9. Insofar as the visiting rights, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that at least the right of visiting the minor grandson shall be ordered for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent has no objection for visiting the minor child Sanjeev by the petitioner and her family members. The petitioner being the maternal grandmothe