The welfare of the child is the primary consideration in custody cases, and the financial stability and ability of the parent to provide care and comfort are crucial factors.

( 1 ) THE appellant was married to one Yasmin in 1980 but the marriage did not bear fruit as no child was born to them until 1984. On 13th Jan. 1984 the appellant married a second time whereafter he and his wife Zeenat Parveen lived together for some time. On 10-11-1984 a son was born. According to Zeenat Parveen she was the mother and had given birth to the son while the appellant claimed that Yasmin, his first wife, was the mother of the child. On an application being moved under Sec. 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act the court below has answered this question of motherhood in favour of Zeenat Parveen to whom the custody of the minor has also been entrusted. Aggrieved by the order, the husband filed the present appeal.

( 2 ) TWO main questions arise for consideration. The first question is whether the child was born out of the womb of first or the second wife of appellant. The second question is as to where the welfare of the minor lies in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

( 3 ) IT is undisputed that from 1980 to 1984 the first wife had remained barren. According to the allegations made in the application under S. 25, the desire to have a child was one of the major reasons for the second marriage with her. Be it as it may, the fact remains that a son was born on 10-11-1984.

( 4 ) THE controversy only is whether he was born by Zeenat Parveen ? Zeenat Parveen was admittedly a teacher in a school in Rampur Manihar and according to her she had applied for maternity leave on 10-11-1984, from 10-10-1984 to 22-11-1984. In the supporting medical certificate the doctor gave the expected date of delivery at 30-10-1984. In continuation of this another leave application was given on 22-11-1984 for the period 23-11-1984 to 7-1-1985 and this too was accompanied by a medical certificate by the same doctor. Fitness certificate was given on 7th and on 8th January, 1985 she gave her joining report along with the fitness certificate. All these documents were summoned from the department through one shamsad Ali, a clerk in the office of Deputy Inspector of Schools. This leave was sanctioned.

( 5 ) APART from above evidence a copy of the birth register of Local Board has been filed, according, to which a male child is reported to have been born on 10-11-1984 at about 1. 30 P. M. This information was conveyed to the Board by Irfan Ahmed, who is none other than the appellants father. The name of the child has been mentioned as Mohd. Khavar. The entry is dated 12-11-1984.

( 6 ) IT is on this evidence that the court held Zeenat Parveen to be the mother of the minor in question and it is very seriously assailed by the appellant. Learned counsel has tried to point out certain incongruities in the oral evidence besides referring to some prescriptions filed by the appellant to justify his case. It is urged that according to Zeenat Parveen the child did not cry after birth. This is not correct. She has denied this suggestion. Of course she said that he never remained under medical treatment. It was also pointed out that her statement was contrary to the evidence of Smt. R. D. Tyagi, the nurse who had performed the delivery. According to the nurse the child was in a critical, condition at birth and was immediately taken to a Doctor. Evidence of the nurse needs to be read with caution as her role is not free from suspicion. A sum of Rs. 15/- was deposited with K. P. Maternity Centre, Saharanpur on 9-11-1984 and a receipt for the same was issued by this witness on 9-11-1984. In the receipt the name of patient was entered as Zeenat Parveen wife of Mohd. Khalid, Mohalla Sharranaja. The name of the midwife was given as R. D. Tyagi. At the bottom of this receipt there is an endorsement :- "out door delivery. Sd. /- R. D. Tyagi". When the nurse entered in the witness box she proved the receipt and she also stated that she had performed the delivery of a son born to Zeenat Parveen. During cross-examination, however, she mentioned th