JUDGMENT : One Jagjiwanpershad made an application to the District Judge Indore under S. 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of his minor wife. The plaintiff's allegations are that minor Ramkuwar is his lawfully married wife. He states that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who are the father and mother of the minor are detaining the minor and they come in the way and do not give the custody of the minor wife to him. The applicant fears that if the custody of the minor is not given to him she would be given in Natra elsewhere. The non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 who are the father and mother of the minor Ramkuwar contended that Ramkuwar is aged above 18 years and she is not a minor. They also contended that minor is not the lawfully married wife of the applicant Jagjiwanpershad. They contended that the applicant stated that he belongs to the same sub-caste as that of the non-applicants and by falsely stating his caste he wanted to marry the minor. But the non-applicants came to know about it and the marriage was not brought about. 2. The learned District Judge without making any inquiry rejected the plaintiff's application on the ground that the Court could not inquire into the question of the validity of marriage. The lower Court relied on a case reported in 'BALMAKUND v. JANKI', 3 All 403. In a judgment of four lines the Judge of the Allahabad High Court held that where a person claims the custody of a female minor on the ground that she is his wife, and such minor denies that she is so, Act No. IX of 1861. does not apply. Such person should establish his claim by a suit in the Civil Court. That Allahabad case was decided on the provisions of Act No. IX of 1861. The present application is made under the Guardians and Wards Act No. VIII of 1890. In my opinion, complicated question relating to marriage may not be tried by the District Judge under the Guardians and Wards Act but there is nothing to prevent the Court under certain circumstances to decide the question of the factum of marriage without deciding its validity. At least a 'prima facie' inquiry should have been made whether the applicant proves the factum of marriage. At least a 'prima facie' inquiry should have been made whether the applicant proves the factum of marriage. But without giving any opportunity to the applicant to prove the factum of marriage the Court cannot shut out the inquiry by saying that it has no power to go into the question of marriage. The Court should have also inquired whether Ramkuwar is or is not a minor because if she is not a minor then the Court had no jurisdiction under the Guardians and Wards Act and the proper remedy for the applicant would have been to institute a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The welfare of the minor and her wishes are to be ascertained. However it appears that the lower Court is so obsessed by the judgment in 3 All 403' that it refused to make even a 'prima facie' inquiry into the factum of marriage and also to determine the question whether Ramkuwar is a minor or major. Under these circumstances I remand the case to the lower Court with a direction to dispose of the application of the plaintiff on merits and according to law. Costs cost in the cause. Case remanded.