The welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in deciding the custody of a minor.

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Guardian Judge, Jullundur, dated 9-2-1977, whereby the custody of the minor was given to his father, the respondent.

2. An application was made by the respondent for the custody of his minor son, Jiwan Pal alias Rajinder, born on 28-1-1964 against the present appellants, who are maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother of the minor respectively. The mother of the minor, Smt. Tushar Kanta died in 1973 at the house of her parents, the appellants. The case of the respondent is that he is the father of the minor and thus his natural guardian, that he has sufficient property and income to maintain the minor properly and that his approximate income is Rs. 5,000/- per mensem. The appellants, on the other hand, are alleged to be financially poor and do not have sufficient means to support and educate the minor. Both the appellants are of old age. Appellant No. 1, the maternal grandfather of the minor, is suffering from paralysis for the last more than ten years and so the health and prosperity of the minor in the custody of the appellants is in danger. It was also alleged in the petition that the appellants were keeping the minor in their custody out of greed as they wanted to extract money from the respondent. As against this, the case of the appellants is that the minor is living with them since his birth and was born at their house. The allegation of the respondent that the appellants are not in possession of sufficient means to bring up and educate the minor was denied. About six months prior to the birth of the minor, relations between the respondent and the mother of the minor became strained because the respondent had illicit relations with the wife of his brother Sada Nand, and the mother of the minor objected to the same, with the result that she had to shift to the house of her parents, i.e., the appellants. The minor s mother was got trained as a nurse. It was also averred that the respondent was trying to take away the minor because he was anxious to grab the insurance money. On the pleadings of the parties the following two issues were framed :-

1. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this application?

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the custody of the minor Jiwan Pal alias Rajinder? At the time of arguments issue No. 1 was not pressed. Regarding issue No. 2, the learned Guardian Judge came to the conclusion that it was in the interest and welfare of the minor that he should remain in the custody of his father, the respondent, and an order was passed accordingly.

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that it is clear from the evidence on the record that since his birth the minor had throughout remained in the custody of the appellants at their house in village Kathgarh and that the minor was getting education in the High School in that village and was studying at present in the 8th class. The finding of the trial court is that according to the evidence of P. W. 1 Resham Singh, Physical Training Instructor of the D. B. M. High School, Kultham, the minor had been attending the said school from 5-4-1975 to 14-5-1975 in the 6th class and according to P. W. 5 he attended the said school from 5-4-1975 to 12-4-1975 and thereafter from 6-5-1975 to 14-5-1975, and that the school was closed for summer vacation from 14-4-1975 to 5-5-1975. According to the statement of R. W. 3 Jagat Ram, Headmaster Primary School, Kathgarh, the minor left the school at Kathgarh on 1-4-1975. From this evidence the trial Court concluded that after 1-4-1975 the minor remained with his father in village Kultham and studied in the High School at Kultham for about a month and thereafter he was removed by the appellants on 15-5-1975. There seems to be no warrant for this conclusion. There is no evidence on the record to show that the minor had remained in the custody of his father at village Kultham before 5-4-1975 or after 15-5-1975. It is not den