JUDGMENT :-This appeal has been filed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Meerut passed under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). An application under Section 25 of the Act was moved by one Ikhlas for the custody of Smt. Sabra who was alleged by him to be his wife. She was stated to be a minor. Latif, in whose custody the minor was, as well as the minor Smt. Sabra filed objections to the grant of the application. Learned District Judge held that because the High Court had in some proceedings, which he has not mentioned in the order, appointed Ikhlas as guardian of Smt. Sabra, it would be for the welfare of the minor to be in his custody. Latif was removed from the guardianship in those proceedings. Proceedings in the High Court had arisen out of an application under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act. From the order it is apparent that the learned District Judge did not apply his independent mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before passing an order. 2. Section 25 of the Act permits the issue of a warrant only for restoration of the minor to the custody of a guardian of his person, if in the opinion of the court dealing with the matter, it would be for the welfare of the ward to return to the custody of the guardian. The purpose of the provision is to restore back the ward to the custody of the guardian. Guardian has been defined under Section 4 (2) of the Act as a person having care of the person of a minor or of his property or both his person and property. There is no finding by the District Judge that Smt. Sabra was in the custody of Ikhlas and from that custody she had been taken away by Latif. Without such a finding no order under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act could be passed for the return of the minor. The order cannot therefore be upheld. As the learned Additional District Judge had not directed his attention to the relevant material it would be proper that he should decide the matter afresh. 3. In the result the appeal is allowed. The order cannot therefore be upheld. As the learned Additional District Judge had not directed his attention to the relevant material it would be proper that he should decide the matter afresh. 3. In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the Additional District Judge is set aside and he is directed to decide the application in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case parties will bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.