JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Contest between the Hindu husband and wife for the guardianship and custody of their minor son has reached the stage of this appeal. The husband, who was impleaded as the sale Respondent is this appeal, was successful in the trial court. During the pendency of the appeal he departed from this mortal world leaving the widow to fight with his brothers and mother for the guardianship and custody of the minor son Dilip now aged about eight years. 2. One of the obligations of sovereignty is the guardianship of infants in the State Laws and Regulations apart from custom have given effect to this principle making provisions for guardianship and custody of minors. One such Law is the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, (Act VIII of 1890). This principle of State care of the infants is also well reflected in the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 39(f) of the Constitution. The minority and guardianship of person and property of a Hindu minor is governed by the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (Act XXXII of 1956). The provisions of 1890 Act and 1956 Act referred to above, are complementary and in case of repugnancy, the provisions of 1956 Act would prevail. See Kusa Parida and Anr. v. Baishnab Mallik and Ors. ILR 1965 Cutt. 839. Welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration for appointment of a guardian of the minor which is recovgised both in Section 7 of the 1890 Act and Section 13 of the 1956 Act and has consistently been laid down by this Court in Saradamoni Dasi v. Jagannath Mohapatra 1959 O.J.D. 277 (supra) Bina Ray v. Dilip Kumar Das ILR 1976 Cutt. 244, Dilip Kumar Das v. Bina Ray ILR (1978) Cutt. 447 and Smt. Mina Devi v. Shyamsundar Agarwalla M.A. No. 168 of 1984 - D/23-7-1984. This has also been authoritatively laid down by the Supreme Court in Rosy Jacob Vs. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, and Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka Vs. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka. Onerous and arduous duty is cast on the Court to act as a wise father not being tired of the worries which may be occasioned to it in selecting a guardian best fitted to assure the welfare of the minor and no Court should grudge the truble and worry that would necessarily occur so long as an infant has not attained majority. 3. 3. Section 17 of the 1890 Act has laid down the guideline for appointment of guardian and Section 13(2) of the 1956 Act in clear terms states that no person shall be entitled to the guardianship by virtue of the provisions of the Act or of any law relating to guardianship in marriage among Hindus if the Court is of opinion that his or her guardianship will not be for the welfare of the minor. Until there is controversy, the natural guardian has been selected to be the guardian of the minor unless the natural guardian is considered unfit, he or she is to be the guardian of the minor. When a controversy arises, Courts are to look into the facts and circumstances to examine if the natural guardian is unfit and whether the appointment of the natural guardian will be for the welfare of the minor. The considerations very according to age or sex of the minor. The character and capacity of the proposed guardian play a great role. Where the child is able to express his or her wishes the same are also to be kept in view. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, Courts have discarded natural guardians like father or mother in case the same was necessary for the welfare of the minor. Therefore, a Court is to exercise the power in each case giving the best judicial consideration. 4. In the background of the aforesaid legal principles laid down by high authorities, the onerous and arduous task of appointing a guardian for the minor boy Dilip is to be examined in this appeal. 5. Normally, this Court exercising the appellate power u/s 47(a) of the 1890 Act would be slow in interfering with the power exercised by the District Judge u/s 7. In this case, the learned District Judge refused to appoint the mother as the guardian u/s 7 on the finding that the father was the natural guardian in whose custody the child Dilip was and in view of the fact that the mother being a patient of epilepsy, could not have taken care of himself and her son at the time of attack of the disease from which she was not fully cured which might endanger the life of the child being at stake. The situation, however, has completely changed on account of the death of the father Purna during the pendency of the appeal. The child has grown up in age and is now reading in the Second Primary Standard. He is in custody of the two uncles Janardan and Biswanath and paternal grandmother Rukmani aged 75 years. The child has expressed a wish in this Court that he prefers janardan and his wife (elder uncle and aunt) than his mother. This is, however, outcome of a fear complex that he would be assaulted by his mother and she would kill him. He has also expressed that he does not know his mother. Lack of knowledge or identity of his mother is not correct inasmuch as he urinated and cried aloud when his mother touched him outside the chamber. If he had not known his mother, there would not have been such a reaction on account of fear. The wish expressed is, thus, not a free and frank desire. No weight can be given to such wish of the child. 6. The substituted Respondents were permitted to adduce evidence in this Court. No evidence has been led by them to indicate that the Appellant-mother is yet suffering from epilepsy. There is no other evidence to come to the conclusion that the character or capacity of the mother is such that she is unfit to be the guardian. 7. It is true that Janardan and Suprava take care of the child as their own. Janardan has also unequivocally stated on oath in this Court that he has the intention to make a fixed deposit of Rs. 10,000/- for future provision of Dilip. This is not a pre-condition for the child remaining in his care and custody. However, this is not a sufficient ground to deprive the child of the natural affection and care of the mother. I cannot lose sight of the fact that Daringibadi is only a village in Phulbani district. Child Dilip cannot remain for ever at Daringibadi. Compared to Daringibadi, where Janardan and Suprava reside whith Dilip, Phulbani town, where the mother of Dilip resides, has a post graduate college and a district hospital with specialists. I cannot lose sight of the fact that Daringibadi is only a village in Phulbani district. Child Dilip cannot remain for ever at Daringibadi. Compared to Daringibadi, where Janardan and Suprava reside whith Dilip, Phulbani town, where the mother of Dilip resides, has a post graduate college and a district hospital with specialists. The mother, the natural guardian, being in a better position to take care of the health and education of the child, the said interests of the child can be better looked after and well protected by the mother which would be in the greater interest and welfare of the child. Janardan and Suprava are also not helpless in the matter in case they find that the child Dilip is not getting adequate care and attention at Phulbani with his mother. The Court is the custodian of the minor. They can immediately move the Court which is now situated at Phulbani itself and bring the disadvantages of Dilip with his mother to the notive of the Court. 8. Judging from all circumstances, I hold that the mother Appellant Ratnamanjari is to be appointed as guardian of minor Dilip. 9. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs in this appeal. Office is directed to send back the records to the District Judge, Phulbani, who shall take steps to give custody of minor Dilip to Smt. Ratnamanjari, the Appellant from the Respondents. Final Result : Allowed