JUDGMENT :- This appeal has been filed by Trine Hoist Thomsen against the order of the First Additional District Judge, Allahabad dismissing her application under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act for being appointed guardian of the person of the minor girl. Km. Chaitali. The appellant is a resident of Denmark. She wished to take under her guardianship a minor Indian girl and for that purpose approached the respondent. The minor is reported to be an orphan living under the care and custody of the respondent the Children's National Institute, Swaraj Bhawan Allahabad. Learned counsel appearing for the Institute has stated that the minor is an orphan and the Institute has no knowledge about her parents relations or religion. The Institute, he has further stated, has no objection to the appellant being appointed as the minor's guardian.

2. The trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that on the material available on the record, it was not established that it would be for the "well being of the minor" that the applicant be appointed her guardian. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the affidavits had been filed in the trial Court and on the basis thereof, the Court below should have come to the conclusion that it would be for the welfare of the minor to appoint the appellant as the guardian. The affidavit has been sworn by the Notary Public in Denmark. Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, provides-

"14. Reciprocal arrangements for recognition of notarial acts done by foreign no-taries-

If the Central Government is satisfied that by the law or practice of any country or place outside India, the notarial acts done by notaries within India are recognized for all or any limited purposes in that country or place, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that the notarial acts lawfully done by notaries within such country or place shall be recognised within India for all purposes or, as the case may be, for such limited purposes as may be specified in the notification."

Although time was granted, the necessary notification has not been produced and it has not been shown that the affidavit sworn to Denmark is admissible in guardianship proceedings in Courts in India. Only a telegram sent by the Ambassador of Denmark in India to the respondent opposite party in this case has been produced which states that "according to principles in Danish administration of justice there is reciprocity between India and Danish documents during a pending Court cue in Denmark." The telegram however cannot be treated as evidence. But, even if all the facts stated in that affidavit are taken at established, no case has been made out for the appointment of the appellant as guardian.

3. The facts that have been asserted are : that the appellant is a well-to-do lady having considerable income, she lives in Denmark and is interested in rearing an Indian child, and that she is willing to be appointed the guardian of the minor's person. The purpose of the application seeking the guardianship of the minor is to take the child to Denmark. The appellant has no intention of coming to India or living in India. Learned counsel contends that it may not be possible for the child to get a passport for going to Denmark to join the appellant unless the appellant is appointed a guardian of the minor's person. It is clear that the purpose of the application is primarily to secure a licence for taking the child out of India. This is certainly not the purpose for which the Court can be moved to appoint guardian of a minor. It is not contemplated by the Guardians and Wards Act According to Article 6 of the Corpus Juris Secundum. Vol. 39, page 6, "a guardian cannot be appointed for minors for the purposes of having them sent immediately into a foreign country :" (Ala-Describes v. Wilmer, 69 Ala. 25, 44 Am. R. 501), "nor will one be appointed for the sole purpose of transferring a minor legal residence to a