The welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration in determining custody, and the father's right to custody is not absolute.

This is a first appeal by the defendant-appellant against im pugned judgment and decree dated 10-5- passed by the Family Court, Kanpur Nagar appointing respondent- plaintiff as the guardian of Master Gagan Deep-Singh who was born from the union of the appel lant and respondent after their marraige having taken place on 3-6-1990 according to Sikh religion, which they belong to.

2. An application was made by the respondent husband under Section 10, read with Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act; 1890 (briefly, the Act of 1890) for secur ing custody of his son-Master Gagan Deep Singh stating that Gagan Deep was born on 14-4-1991, that his wife (appellant) left his house without any reason and started living with her parents from 20-11-1991; that the appellant filed a

habeas corpus petition seeking a direction against the respondent to present the minor son in the Court and for giving him into her custody; that by the order of the High Court, the child being below five years of age was given in the custody of the appellant; and that the cus tody of the child having completed the age of five years be given to him as he being the natural guardian has preferential right to his custody. The said application was al lowed by the court below observing in the impugned order that the financial position of the respondent was much better than that of the appellant and that the respondent being a natural guardian of the minor son was entitled to the custody of the child.

3. It is this order which has been chal lenged in this appeal by the appellant. The short question for consideration ii whether the respondent is entitled to the custody of the minor son for the reason that his finan cial position is better than that of the appelllant.

4. In Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand. M. Dinshaw another, AIR 1987 SC 3, the Court enunciated that

"whenever a question arises before the Court pertaining to the custody of a minor children, the matter is to be decided not on considerations of the legal rights of parties but on the sole and predominant criterion of what would best serve the interest and welfare of the minor. "

Can it be said that because of good financial position of the father, welfare of the minor child cannot be taken care of by the mother and that father will take more care of the welfare of the child? Financial resources may be one of the relevant factors for deciding the question as to who will be interested more in the welfare of the minor child, but that is not the sole and very vital factor to decide such a ticklish question. Besides Financial resources, so many other factors have to be considered by the Court for reaching the conclusion whether father is more interested in the welfare of the child or the mother. No doubt, welfare of the child is the paramount consideration and that is consistent to the provisions of Sec tions 7 and 17 of the Act of 1890, which indicate welfare of a minor as the sole guid ing factor, Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (for short, the Act) also provides that welfare of minor shall be paramount consideration for decid ing the guardianship. The court below while ordering custody of the minor son to the father also emphasised on the fact that after the age of five years of the minor, the father is the natural guardian under Section 6 of the Act. When welfare of minor is the main consideration, the norial rule that the father is the natural guardian is not followed. In case of girls, the mother is generally given custody irrespective of their age, because she can understand better the needs of in hibited girls. The courts in general must decide the naughty problem of custody from the point of view as to in whose hands will there be welfare of the child. The father, no doubt, has a legal right, but that right is always in subjugation to the welfare of the minor. If it is not in the interest of the minor to keep him in custody of the father, the fact of father bein