Judgment :- 1. This appeal arises from the order of the District Judge, Quilon, in O. P. (Guardian & Wards Act) No. 45 of 1974. The learned judge dismissed the appellant's application filed under S.8 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, for the custody of bis minor child. 2. The appellant (whom we shall call 'the father') married the respondent (whom we shall call 'the mother') on 21-5-1965. A daughter by name Shobhana was born to them on 29-7-1966. Shortly after the birth of the child, the parents fell out with each other. The mother filed a petition (M. C. No. 22 of 1969) before the Additional Judicial I-Class Magistrate, Pathanam-tnitta, for the maintenance of herself and the minor child. During the pendency of the petition, the parties came to a compromise on the basis of which a divorce was effected by a registered dead dated 4-4-1970 (Ext. B1). That deed provided that the mother was entitled to the custody of the child and that the father would pay to her a sum of Rs. 12/- per mensem to maintain the child. Subsequently an application was filed by the mother for enhanced maintenance and a sum of Rs. 20/- per mensem was awarded by the Magistrate's Court for the maintenance of the child. 3. Thereupon the father filed the present petition on 24-8-1974 under S.8 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. He contended that at the time of Ext. B1 compromise there was an understanding between the parties that the child would be handed over to him when she completed 5 years of age and that the application for enhancement was filed by the mother in violation of Ext. B1 agreement. He further contended that the mother was leading an immoral life and she was not in a position to bring up the child in a congenial atmosphere. 4. These contentions were rejected by the learned Judge. It was found that there was no evidence whatsoever to support the allegation of immorality on the part of the mother. The learned judge also held that there was no evidence to indicate that there was any agreement or understanding between the parties that the child would be handed over to the father on her attaining the age of five. The learned judge disbelieved the evidence of Pw. 2 and Pw. 3. Pw. The learned judge also held that there was no evidence to indicate that there was any agreement or understanding between the parties that the child would be handed over to the father on her attaining the age of five. The learned judge disbelieved the evidence of Pw. 2 and Pw. 3. Pw. 2 had no personal knowledge whatever about the life that was led by the mother and Pw. 3 was very vague in referring to the general behaviour of the mother. The learned judge accepted the evidence of C. Pws.1 to 3 who were neighbours and who spoke to the excellent character of the mother. The child was brought to the chambers of the judge and she was questioned by him. The Judge was much impressed by the fact that she looked absolutely healthy and happy and did not want to leave her mother for the custody of her father. 5. The interest and welfare of the child are matters of paramount consideration in deciding the question of its custody. In doing so, the Court takes into account and duly weighs all the relevant circumstances and facts, including the relationships, claims and wishes of the parents, risks and choices, and adopts the course which appears to the Court to be the best in the interest of the child's welfare. It is not a question of merely balancing the welfare of the child against the claims and wishes of an unimpeachable parent or the justice of the case as between the spouses; it is much more than that. It is the welfare of the child that is of the first and paramount consideration, and it is that which is uppermost in the mind of the Court. 6. Shobhana's parents separated soon after she was born and ever since then she has been living with her mother Shobbana is now H years old. At this age it will be cruel to separate a child from her mother and this is especially so in the case of a daughter. The daughter needs the constant company of her mother who alone can advise her and guide her on matters of utmost personal importance to her. 7. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the mother is in any manner unfit to look after the daughter. The allegation as to the mother's immorality is absolutely baseless. The daughter needs the constant company of her mother who alone can advise her and guide her on matters of utmost personal importance to her. 7. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the mother is in any manner unfit to look after the daughter. The allegation as to the mother's immorality is absolutely baseless. Shobbana, as stated by the learned judge, is a healthy and happy child and is taken good care of. From the sequence of events, it appears to be clear that the judge was perfectly justified in thinking that the petition under S.8 was only a counter-blast to the enhanced compensation granted by the Magistrate. The learned judge, in our view, has rightly held that the petition lacked merits. 8. It is stated in the appeal memorandum that the mother is now married to one Gopalakrishna Pillai and the marriage was solemnised in the Malayalapuzha temple on 11-5-1976 This makes the mother all the more qualified to bring up Shobbana, for, she now has a home where she will have reasonable prospects of receiving the necessary care and affection which had so far been denied to her by her own father. 9. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.