JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 11th May, 1985, passed by the learned District Judge, Kota in Civil Misc Case No. 78/1983, by which while disposing of the application of the petitioner-appellant he directed that Banti (son) should be kept under the guardianship of the mother till he attains the age of seven years and, after that Banti was ordered to be given to the respondent. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner-appellant, Smt Radha Bai and the non-petitioner respondent Narendra Kumar were married on 8th May, 1979 at Kota. During the wedlock one son named Shri Kant alias Banti was born on 13th March, 1981. It is alleged that there was some dispute regarding non-payment of dowry by the parents of the petitioner. It was also alleged that the respondent ill-treated the wife and, ultimately she was turned out of the house. The petitioner thereafter started residing with her parents. During that period when she was residing with her parents, the respondent also came there and started residing with the petitioner. The son named Banti was born out of this wedlock during this period. After some time, the husband left the house of the parents of the petitioner. It is alleged that after some time the husband and the wife started living in a separate house. During that period in August 1.82, a daughter was also born. The allegation of the wife is that again the husband started harassing her for demand of money from the father. On 21st May, 1991 the non-petitioner took away the son with him forcibly. The petitioner filed an application under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, accompanied by a petition under Section 25 of the said Act for obtaining the custody of the son. In August 1 U83, the learned District Judge ordered for an interim custody of Banti in favour of the petitioner. The respondent contested the petition. The learned lower Court recorded the evidence and after appreciating the evidence on record, directed that Banti shall remain in the custody of the petitioner (mother) till he attains the age of seven years, and, thereafter the husband (Narendra Kumar) shall be entitled to the custody of Banti. The respondent contested the petition. The learned lower Court recorded the evidence and after appreciating the evidence on record, directed that Banti shall remain in the custody of the petitioner (mother) till he attains the age of seven years, and, thereafter the husband (Narendra Kumar) shall be entitled to the custody of Banti. Partially aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge, the petitioner-appellant preferred this appeal and the respondent husband also filed cross-objections against the order dated 11th May, 1985, passed by the learned District Judge. Both the appeal and the cross-objections are being disposed of by this judgment, 3. Shri S. P. Tyagi, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of the learned District Judge. Kota to the extent of handing over the custody of the minor, Banti to Narendra Kumar after Iianti attains the age of seven years is not a justified order and it is liable to be set aside. Shri Tyagi submitted that when the learned lower Court after appreciating the welfare of the minor directed that the minor should remain in the custody of the mother till the minor attains the age of seven years, then it should have left the controversy open for the claim of the minor Banti to be decided on his completing the age of seven years. 4. On the other hand, Shri M. S. Bhargava, learned counsel for the husband, submitted that in case of a child below five years of age, normally the custody should remain with the mother. But as soon as the minor completes the age of five years, custody should be given to the father as he is the natural guardian under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. There is no dispute between the parties about the age of Banti Banti was born on 13th March, 1981. Admittedly, he was of less then five years when the petition under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, was filed by the petitioner against the non-petitioner and, the minor has now attained the age of more than five years. In this appeal, and the cross-objections, the main question which is required to be considered is, whether it would be in the interest and welfare of Banti to allow him to continue in the custody of the mother, or he should be allowed to remain with the father. In this appeal, and the cross-objections, the main question which is required to be considered is, whether it would be in the interest and welfare of Banti to allow him to continue in the custody of the mother, or he should be allowed to remain with the father. At present, Banti is with the mother. Shri Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant submitted that Banti is getting good education while remaining with the mother. He has shown the mark-sheet in support of his contention In the mark-sheet Banti has secured in most of the subjects, 80% marks. The learned lower Court, after taking into consideration the better educational facilities available to Banti at Kota as compared to the educational facilities available at the place where the non petitioner is serving, or where his parents are residing, passed the impugned order. 5. I have gone through the entire record. The evidence produced by the perties and the findings recorded by the learned lower court have also been considered. Section 6 of the Hindu Minorities & Guardianship Act. 1956 constitutes "father" as the natural guardian of minor son. But that provision cannot supersede the paramount consideration as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor. As the finding recorded in this regard by the learned lower Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and the discretion exercised by him for allowing the custody of the minor to the mother is justified, I am of the view that no interference should be made in the discretion exercised by the learned lower Court in the appeal, when the direction is in the interest and welfare of the minor. In Snehlata v. Mahendra ( AIR 1979 Raj. 29 ) , Gheesi v. Shri Rama ( AIR 1972 Raj 256 ) and in a recent judgment in Mohd Faruq Qureshi v. Smt. Manzar Bano (1996 R L R 438) this principle is recognised that in the appointment or declaration of any person as guardian of a Hindu minor by a Court. the welfare of the minor shall be the paramount consideration. the welfare of the minor shall be the paramount consideration. However, as provided in Section 17 of the Act in appointing or declaring a guardian the Court shall be guided by what, consistently with the law to which the minor is subject, appears in the interest and to be for the welfare of the minor, the Court shall have regard to the age, sex and religion of the minor, the character and capacity of the proposed guardian and his nearness of kin to the minor, and if the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference, the Court may consider that preference Undoubtedly the Court will also take into consideration while deciding about the custody that the guardian is not unfit to be guardian of the person of the minor. In the instant case, the mother had moved an application for handing over the custody of the minor son. who did not attain the age of five years. Shri Bhargava submitted, on the basis of Snehlata v. Mahendra (Supra) that simply because the child was getting the best education and was being brought up in the custody of the mother and her parents, that should not be a reason to direct the custody of the minor, to the mother as similar education can be given by the husband also. But, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this is not possible while father is remaining at a place where such type of school or education is not there in which Banti is at present getting his education. Thus, the authority relied upon by Shri Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondent is not at all applicable. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the learned lower Court exercised the discretion properly taking into consideration the welfare of the minor. Thus, the authority relied upon by Shri Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondent is not at all applicable. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the learned lower Court exercised the discretion properly taking into consideration the welfare of the minor. I, therefore, confirm the order passed by the learned lower Court that Banti shall continue to remain in the custody of the petitioner appellant till he attains the age of seven years but I quash the order that the custody of the minor, Banti, be given to the respondent after Banti attains the age of seven years, instead I direct that after Banti attains the age of seven years, the parties may move an application for the custody of the child in accordance with law and the Court shall consider the respective contentions of the father and the mother and pass appropriate order after examining the welfare of the minor in the facts and circumstances that may be presented by the parties. 7. The appeal and the cross-objections shall stand disposed of accordingly. *******