JUDGMENT B. Mukerji, J. - This is a special appeal against the decision of a learned single Judge whereby the learned Judge dismissed a First Appeal From Order. 2. The First Appeal from Order to this Court arose out of guardianship proceedings. On the 21st of January, 1958, Mehar Singh, the respondent, applied for being appointed a guardian of Smt. Anguri Devi, who, Mehar Singh alleged, was his wedded wife. Mehar Singh's application purported to be under Section 7 read with Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act. There was opposition to Mehar Singh's claim to being appointed a guardian on behalf of Anguri Devi's mother, Smt. Parsandi, and one Kali Ram who also was a near relation of Anguri Devi. In this connection it may be of some consequence to notice that there was another application for guardianship by one Parma Nand who claimed to be a distant uncle of the girl, Anguri Devi. 3. In the petition the date of birth of Anguri Devi was given as 13th December, 1940. There was no allegation in the petition that Anguri Devi had ever been under the guardianship of Mehar Singh or ever stayed with him. There was, therefore, no allegation of Anguri Devi having left the guardianship of a lawful guardian or her having taken away from any lawful guardian under whose care she had been. At the stage of the trial of the guardianship matter a claim was made on behalf of Mehar Singh for Anguri Devi being put in his custody. The claim for the custody of the alleged minor was made under Section 12 which only related to temporary custody and not the type of permanent custody which was sought by Mehar Singh in this particular case. 4. As we said above, there was a contest both by Srimati Parsandi, the mother, and Kali Ram in regard to Mehar Singh's claim to guardianship of Anguri Devi. It was alleged on behalf of both the mother and Kali Ram that Anguri Devi had never been married to Mehar Singh. The question which came to me hotly contested between the parties, therefore, was whether Anguri Devi had ever been married to Mehar Singh. The trial court, namely, the court of the District Judge of Saharanpur, went into this question of marriage between Mehar Singh and Anguri Devi. The question which came to me hotly contested between the parties, therefore, was whether Anguri Devi had ever been married to Mehar Singh. The trial court, namely, the court of the District Judge of Saharanpur, went into this question of marriage between Mehar Singh and Anguri Devi. A volume of evidence appears to have been led on either side. The evidence that was led was not, however, of the type that could be said to put the matter beyond the pale of controversy or to which the ring of truth attached without question. The evidence depended the status and the future happiness of young people. There was, it may be stressed in this connection, no such documentary evidence depended the status and the future happiness of two parents of the girl on which reliance could be placed in this case for holding in favour of one or the other of the contesting parties on the question of marriage. The question was beset with many difficulties as would be obvious to any one who scrutinised the evidence that was led in this case. The learned District Judge entered upon a scrutiny of the evidence and came to the conclusion that Mehar Singh had been married to Anguri Devi. That finding of fact appears to have been accepted without much demur by the learned single Judge. We, however, have not felt sure about the correctness of that finding but then we are not inclined to finally determine the question, for we are of the opinion that a court exercising jurisdiction under the Guardian and Wards Act should, as far as possible, refrain from entering into disputed questions involving legal status like that of marriage, adoption, etc., for the obvious reason that proceedings under the Guardian and Wards Act are summary proceedings meant primarily for safeguarding the interests of a minor who is, and always remains, a ward of the Court. It was in the court investigated into the question as to whether or not the court could hand over its own responsibility of looking after a minor's property and person to another. It was in the court investigated into the question as to whether or not the court could hand over its own responsibility of looking after a minor's property and person to another. The court had the power to investigate as to whether or not the claimant had competence for being appointed a guardian of the minor's person or property, but while investigating into that question a court could not very properly pronounce upon complicated and disputed questions of fact relating to legal status. It may be pointed out that in this particular case the learned District Judge did not investigate into the question is to say, whether Mehar Singh was a proper person in whose custody the person of Anguri Devi and her property could be placed without detriment to the interests of the minor, Anguri Devi. All that the learned District Judge did was to find that he could act as the guardian of Anguri Devi. 5. As far back as the year 1881 a Bench of this court in the case of Balmakund v. Janki, ILR 3 All. 403 decided that where a person claims the custody of a female minor on the ground that she is his wife and such a minor denies that she is so, then such a question should not be determined under the summary proceedings of a guardianship matter but should be established in a regular suit in a civil court. 6. The same view was reiterated again in the same year in the decision of Pakhandu v. Manki, ILR 3 All. 506 where a minor wife, when she refused to return to cohabitation with the husband on the ground that he was out of caste as a consequence of having committed a criminal offence, applied to the District Court under Act IX of 1861 for the custody of the under the circumstances of the case that Act did not apply. 7. 506 where a minor wife, when she refused to return to cohabitation with the husband on the ground that he was out of caste as a consequence of having committed a criminal offence, applied to the District Court under Act IX of 1861 for the custody of the under the circumstances of the case that Act did not apply. 7. In this particular case there is yet something more on which we are of the opinion that Mehar Singh should not have been appointed the guardian of Anguri Devi, and further that Anguri Devi should not have been directed to be put in the custody of Mehar Singh, and that lay in the fact that Anguri Devi today has attained majority and as a major she was fully competent to say whether or not she would go and live in the home of Mehar Singh, even assuming that Mehar Singh was her lawfully wedded husband. It is not necessary for us to quote authority for the proposition that where a person in respect of whom a guardian is to be appointed has attained sufficient maturity, even though he or she has not attained the age of majority, then the wishes of such a person has got to be taken into account by the court as an important factor deserving consideration. As we have said earlier, there was nothing in the original proceedings before the learned District Judge to indicate that the minor was at any stage willing to go to Mehar Singh or that she ever admitted that she denied her marriage with Mehar Singh. On the statement of the date of the birth given by the husband himself in his petition, the girl Anguri Devi was a major now, as we said, and, therefore, we cannot direct her to go into the custody of Mehar Singh against her wishes, and we are told that she definitely refuses to either acknowledge Mehar Singh as her husband or go into his custody. 8. For the reasons given above, we have seen no jurisdiction at all to uphold the order that was made by the learned District Judge in this case appointing Mehar Singh as the guardian of Smt. Anguri Devi and directing that the custody of Smt. Anguri Devi and her ornaments and clothes be given to Mehar Singh. 8. For the reasons given above, we have seen no jurisdiction at all to uphold the order that was made by the learned District Judge in this case appointing Mehar Singh as the guardian of Smt. Anguri Devi and directing that the custody of Smt. Anguri Devi and her ornaments and clothes be given to Mehar Singh. The decision of the learned single Judge also, in our opinion, could not be sustained. 9. We accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the order of the learned single Judge dated the 24th October 1961, as also the order of the learned District Judge dated the 25th May, 1961, The appellants in this case will have their costs of this appeal from the respondents.