The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in the appointment of a guardian, and the financial means and character of the parties are crucial factors in deciding custody.

( 1 ) AN application was moved by the appellants under Section 10 of Guardian and Wards Act read with the provisions of Hindu Minority and guardianship Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the custody of the minor Master Vardan Beri who was admittedly borne on 18-6-1996.

( 2 ) AMIT Beri appellant is the father and hardaya Narain Berl, appellant No. 2 is grandfather of the minor and the respondent is his mother. The application for custody of the minor had been rejected by the additional District Judge, Bulandshahar by judgment and order dated 7-2-2002. Aggrieved by it the present appeal has been preferred.

( 3 ) I have heard Shri R. B. Singhal and shri B. K. Solanki, learned counsel for the appellants and shri Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgments.

( 4 ) IT is admitted that the marriage between the appellant No. 1 and the respondent was a love marriage and the minor was borne on 18-6-1996 at Bulandshahar. Archana Sharma, elder sister of the respondent is living in Dubai and is a divorcee. The respondent went to meet her and stayed at her house for some period. Thereafter she came back. Later on she and her husband (appellant No. 1) went to Dubai and both of them joined service there. There were some differences and the appellant No. 1 returned back to Bulandshahar. The respondent is still in service at Dubai and is getting 5,000 dirhams per month as salary. The minor child Vardan Beri is also living with her.

( 5 ) THE argument that weighed in the decision of the Additional District Judge is that the appellant No. 1 is an un-employed youth and has no sufficient means to property maintain the child. That appellant No. 2 is the grandfather who has re-married and his second wife is the step mother of appellant No. 1. That therefore, she could not have much affection with appellant No. 1 and his child. That the respondent is in service and has sufficient means to properly maintain and brought up the child. Therefore, the application has been rejected.

( 6 ) IT has been argued by the learned consel for the appellants that family of the appellant is a richest family of thebulandshahar town. That they have large number of properties and can properly maintain the child. The appellant No. 1 examined himself in Court and stated on oaththat he has one TV. shop and is earning about Rs. 35. 000/- to Rs. 40. 000/- per month. He further stated that he is in possession of the evidence regarding the shop and property but has not produced the same. No documentary evidence or the copy of the Income-tax return has been filed to show the status of the appellants and there is bald statement that the family of the appellants is the richest family of the Bulandshahar town.

( 7 ) IN the matter of appointment of guardian the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child and not rights of the parties according to law. This settled position of law has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the parties and therefore the question for decision is regarding the welfare of the child.

( 8 ) IT is admitted that the parents are Indian and the child was also borne in India. The mother has shifted to Dubai where she is in service and is living with her elder sister who had divorced her husband. The respondent has also filed the Suit for divorce against the appellant No. 1 on the ground of cruelty, demand of dowry etc. This is the background of the family of the respondent.

( 9 ) NO doubt, the respondent is earning sufficient money to maintain herself and her minor children but it alone is not sufficient to record finding regarding the welfare of the child. The allegation of the appellants is that she is a lady of bad character. The appellant Amit Beri in his statement in the Court has stated that the respondent used to attend night clubs and often used to return late in the night. He further stated that he used to lock himself inside the room whenever the respondent came late in the nig