JUDGMENT G. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner in a proceeding under the Guardians and Wards Act. He is the father of four minor children aged 10 years, 8 years, 6 years and 2 years respectively on the date of the application. The application was filed on 22nd May 1978. The mother of the minors died in 1976. Three months thereafter the petitioner married a second time and has a child in the second wife at the time of the application. According to him during the lifetime of his first wife, namely, the mother of the minors, all of them were staying in the respondent's house, the respondents being the mother and father of the deceased first wife, as per the custom in the community. After her death according to the petitioner with the consent and blessings of the respondents and mainly to look after these minor children he married a second time and stayed with the respondents with the second wife for some time until he was able to purchase a house for himself and his family. That he was able to do and he moved into his own house. But the minor children were not taken there immediately as the respondents requested that that may be done after some time. He used to visit the children and attend to all their needs. But as he found that this arrangement involves a lot of difficulties he wanted to take the children with him to his house which the respondents did not allow. His repeated requests in this regard also was not successful and according to him he needs the help of the court to get their custody. The respondents denied the right of the petitioner to have the custody of the children. According to them the children had all along been living with them and the petitioner was not properly maintaining them or attending to their needs. He chose to marry soon after the death of his first wife. They did not give their blessings to his second marriage. The second wife while she was staying with the respondents did not exhibit any sympathetic disposition against the children and she left the house when the petitioner took a separate building for residence. They further allege that the children will never be happy in the new surrounding. They did not give their blessings to his second marriage. The second wife while she was staying with the respondents did not exhibit any sympathetic disposition against the children and she left the house when the petitioner took a separate building for residence. They further allege that the children will never be happy in the new surrounding. They further allege that they are healthy and capable of looking after the children, they have sufficient means to get on and the children are properly fed and educated. It was alleged that this application for custody is filed as a counter blast to the application filed by them on behalf of the children for maintenance under S.125 Criminal Procedure Code. The lower court after examining the petitioner and the first respondent, heard the matter and passed orders dismissing the petitioner's application. It is against this that this appeal has been filed. 2. In a case of this kind the welfare of the minors is the paramount consideration of the court. It is admitted fact that the petitioner appellant was residing with the respondents during the lifetime of his first wife. That appears to be due to two reasons. Firstly as per the custom, similar to that prevailed among the Marumakkathayees the husband used to go and stay in the house of the wife. Secondly the petitioner had not purchased a house for himself then. When the mother of the minors died it is his responsibility to look after the children and his evidence in his case that he married a second time mainly to enable him to look after the children with a female help appears to be true. This is further strengthened by the admitted fact that the second wife also resided with the respondents and the children in the house of the respondent's house for some time until the petitioner purchased a house for himself. The second wife is not a member of the respondent's family. That she went and stayed with them until he purchased another house is clear proof that the petitioner has been anxious to make every arrangement to look after children. Again he is the natural guardian. It is his responsibility to bring up the children and make them useful citizens of the country. Three of them - minors 1, 2 and 4 - are girls. Again he is the natural guardian. It is his responsibility to bring up the children and make them useful citizens of the country. Three of them - minors 1, 2 and 4 - are girls. A time is come when they have to be educated, soon they will have to be given in marriage. All these are not the responsibility of the respondents, but only that of the petitioner. The third, a son, has to be educated and brought up with all discipline. All these are part of the parental duty and respondents have, if at all, only a moral responsibility. Nothing has been brought out in the evidence of the second respondent to accuse the second wife and call her a "proverbial step mother" the expression used by the lower court. In a situation like this instead of withholding the children, what one expect of the respondents is to send the children with the petitioner and give him all encouragement and support to bring them up. Instead of that the respondents have gone to a criminal court and asked for maintenance from the petitioner for the minors. This will only aggravate the hostility, cut of tie of affection and may lead to a disruption of the petitioner's family by corrupting the minor children. Considering the future of the minors and the responsibility of the petitioner we are satisfied that the minors should be brought up by the petitioner in his surroundings as members of his family. His care, affection and sense of discipline have to be there to bring up the children. 3. There are two factors which are highlighted by the respondents against the appellant. Firstly it is said that under the personal law, next to the mother, it is the grandmother who is the first respondent, who is entitled to the custody of the girls until they attain puberty and of the boy until he attains seven years. But this rule is subject to another rule that the custody of the mother and the female relations are subject to the supervision of the father which he is entitled to exercise by virtue of his guardianship. It is seen from the evidence that the grandmother has filed a petition under S.125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for obtaining maintenance for the children from the father. This has again created hostility between them. It is seen from the evidence that the grandmother has filed a petition under S.125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for obtaining maintenance for the children from the father. This has again created hostility between them. The petitioner appellant complains that he is not allowed to look after the children. In such circumstances the claim of the respondents on the basis of personal law has to be subordinated to the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, S.19, which says that during the lifetime of the father his right to be in custody of the children cannot be overlooked in an application under the Guardians and Wards Act. We are supported by the decision in Mt. Siddio-Un-Nissa Bibi v. Nisam-Uddin Khani (AIR 1932 Allahabad 215) where Sulaiman, Acting C. J. has stated the principle thus at page 217: - "The personal law has been abrogated to the extent laid down in the Act. Where, however, the personal law is not in conflict with any provision of the Act, I would not be prepared to hold that it has necessarily been superseded." At page 216 it is observed thus: "There can be no doubt that so far as the power to appoint and declare the guardian of a minor under S.17 of the Act is concerned, the personal law of the minor concerned is to be taken into consideration, but that law is not necessarily binding upon the court, which must look to the welfare of the minor consistently with that law. This is so in cases where S.17 applies. In such cases the personal law has to this extent been superseded that it is not absolutely binding on the court and can be ignored if the welfare of the minor requires that someone else, even inconsistently with that law, is the more proper person to be appointed guardian of the minor. S.19 then provides that 'Nothing in the chapter shall authorise the court ................ to appoint or declare a guardian of the person (a) of a minor who is a married female and whose husband, is not, in the opinion of the court, unfit (6th page begins) to be guardian of her, or (n) ............. S.19 then provides that 'Nothing in the chapter shall authorise the court ................ to appoint or declare a guardian of the person (a) of a minor who is a married female and whose husband, is not, in the opinion of the court, unfit (6th page begins) to be guardian of her, or (n) ............. of a minor whose father is living and is not, in the opinion of the court, unfit to be guardian of the person of the minor, or (o) of a minor whose property is under the superintendence of a Court of Wards competent to appoint a guardian of the person of the minor'. The language of the section, as it stands, obviously implies that when any of the three contingencies mentioned in the sub clauses exists there is no authority in the court to appoint or declare a guardian of the person of the minor at all; that is to say the jurisdiction of the court conferred upon it by S.17 to appoint or declare a guardian is ousted where the case is covered by S.19." This has been followed in Rafia v. Smt. Bashiran (AIR 1963 Rajasthan 239). That was case of a claim of a maternal relation for custody of a minor girl as against the claim of the father. Following the above decision the claim of the father was upheld. Here now the boy is over 7 years and so far as he is concerned even as per the Personal Law the father is entitled to custody. So the respondents are not entitled to have any preferential right for the custody of the children in this case. 4. Another reason put forward is that the appellant is having his business or trade in Hunsur, Karnataka State and he will not be able to attend to the care and welfare of the children if they are taken to his house at Kuthuparamba. Firstly this is not one of the objections raised in the objection. Secondly the petitioner himself has given evidence that he goes to the business place only for one or two weeks in a month and he has got a partner there. There is no case that he has taken his second wife and the child in her to Karnataka. They are staying in his house at Kuthuparamba. Secondly the petitioner himself has given evidence that he goes to the business place only for one or two weeks in a month and he has got a partner there. There is no case that he has taken his second wife and the child in her to Karnataka. They are staying in his house at Kuthuparamba. The fact that a person may have to go to another place and stay there for some time every month for the purpose of the business is itself not a factor to deny his claim to have the custody of his children. So this is also not an answer by way of defence to the claim put forward by the appellant. The appellant has not been shown to be unfit to be a guardian. Taking all the circumstances referred to above, and the need for future responsibility for and the welfare of the children, the custody of the minors should be given to him. 5. Of course the children were from their birth with the respondents. With the respondents another daughter and her children, the sons of the respondents are all staying together. It is also seen that the respondents are not very rich and they had to ask for money from the appellant to bring up the children. In that situation it will not be a happy state of affairs to leave the children with the respondents. The children have to be educated, large amounts may have to be spent for their education and the marriage of the girls. All these are factors which we have to look into in considering the welfare of the minors. Therefore taking all the factors into anxious consideration we feel that in the welfare of the children their custody should be given to their father, namely, the appellant. In the result the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the lower court is set aside and the application filed by the petitioner appellant in the lower court for custody is allowed. The lower court will on receipt of the records back, call upon the respondents to produce the children on a day to be specified and hand over to the appellant. If the respondents default to produce the children, the lower court will take appropriate steps in accordance with S.25 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The lower court will on receipt of the records back, call upon the respondents to produce the children on a day to be specified and hand over to the appellant. If the respondents default to produce the children, the lower court will take appropriate steps in accordance with S.25 of the Guardians and Wards Act. We also order that the appellant will give all facility to the respondents to spend some time with children if need be by taking the children to their home for one or two days once a month. If the respondents require any order of the court for that purpose they can move the lower court for the same from time to time. It is also made clear that this will not debar the appellant or the respondents to move the lower court for any further safeguards if circumstances call for that. With these observations the appeal is disposed of in the above lines. There will be no order as to costs. Send the records forthwith to the lower court.