( 1. ) THIS is an appeal under section 47 of the Guardians and wards Act, 1890, from an order of the First Civil Judge, Class I, Jabalpur, dismissing the appellants application under section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, read with section 25 of the Guardians and Wards act.

( 2. ) RAJKUMAR Mahant (appellant) was married to Smt. Indra Kumari (respondent) in the year 1951. After four or five years, she went away from the matrimonial home and lived with her parents. However, in the year 1958, she returned to her husband and on August 9, 1959, she gave birth to twins a son and a daughter, by name Ravi Kumar and Shashibala respectively. In the year 1960, she again went away from the matrimonial home, along with the children, and since then she has been living with her father. On February 8, 1966, Rajkumar made an application under section 6 of the Hindu minority and Guardianship Act, read with section 25 of the Guardians and wards Act, claiming custody of Ravikumar and Shashibala, inter alia alleging that he is the natural guardian of the children ; that Smt. Indra Kumari deserted him ; and that he was not permitted to meet the children. The application was resisted by the respondent, inter alia contending that the appellant was cruel to her and also to the children ; that he neglected them both ; that it was he who deserted her that he did not pay even the maintenance which was awarded under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code; and that by his own misdeeds and indifferent conduct, the appellant had lost all his rights of guardianship of the persons of the children.

( 3. ) THE learned trial Judge held that the respondent did not remove the children ; that the appellant neglected them ; and that having regard to the welfare of the children, they should continue under the care of their mother.

( 4. ) THE main contention for the appellant is that under section 6 of the hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the appellant, as father of the minor children, is their natural guardian and he cannot be deprived of his statutory right to have the custody of the two children. But the law is clearly this : (1) The provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, mainly intend to crystallise in a statutory form who are the persons entitled to act as natural and testamentary guardians of a Hindu minor and also to impose certain restrictions on their powers. The provisions of the Act, in respect of the matters dealt with in them, no doubt override and abrogate all other provisions and rules of law either by virtue of any text, or any custom or usage having the force of law. (2) But, as expressly enacted in section 2 of the Act, its provisions are supplementary to and not in derogation of the provisions contained in Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. (3) The 1956 Act does not specifically lay down the powers of the Court to appoint or declare guardians. Therefore, section 7 and 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act apply to a case such as the present one. Section 7 deals with the powers of the Court to appoint guardians. Section 17 enumerates the matters which the Court must consider in the matter of appointment of guardians. It is emphasised in both these sections that the welfare of the minor must be the paramount consideration in appointment or declaration of any person as guardian. (4) Section 13 of the 1956 Act removes all doubt when it lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of the Act, no person shall be entitled to the guardianship if the Court is of opinion that his or her guardianship will not be for the welfare of the miner. This section merely reiterates the statutory rule which is the key stone of the whole law on guardianship. (5) The cardinal principle is that minors cannot take care of themselves so that the State as pater Patrice has powers to do all acts and things necessary for their protection. It is, therefore, the primary duty of the Court to be satisfied what