JUDGMENT K.N. Misra. J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 7.3.1987 passed by the District Judge, Hardoi in Misc. Case No. 98 of 1985 (Harish Chandra Shukla v Person and Property of Km. Madhushila) under section 25 of the Guardian and wards Act. 2. Harish Chandra Shukla had moved an application for the appointment of Guardian of the person and property of his minor daughter Km. Madhushila alias Nisha born from his first wife. The applicant Harish Chandra Shukla had remarried with another lady and he has also got children from her. His minor daughter from his first wife Km. Madhushila, aged about 12 years, is living since childhood with her maternal grandfather who contested the application for guardianship moved by Sri Harish Chandra Shukla, the appellant. After taking into consideration the evidence the learned District Judge rejected the application vide order dated 7.2.1987 with the finding that Km. Madhushila is living quite safely and comfortably with the maternal grandfather and keeping in view the welfare of the minor it is not at all appropriate to change the custody and guardianship of the minor because the father though the natural guardian, does not deserve to be appointed as guardian of the minor as he has got a second wife and children from her and there appears no good reason to remove Km. Madhushila from the care and guardianship of her Maternal grandfather, who has brought her up from the very childhood and she is living with him quite comfortably. It would, therefore, be quite inapt and against the interest of the minor to give her in the custody of the father because she would not be able to live comfortably with the step mother whose love and affection would naturally be with her own children and the father's love affection and care would also be divided in the company of his second wife and her children. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that since father is natural guardian of his minor girl from his first wife, and, as such, his application for his appointment as guardian of person and property of Km. Madhushila, deserved to be allowed. Although Km. Madhushila is living eversince her childhood with maternal grandfather but that would not give him preferential legal right to act as guardian of her person and property. Madhushila, deserved to be allowed. Although Km. Madhushila is living eversince her childhood with maternal grandfather but that would not give him preferential legal right to act as guardian of her person and property. Learned counsel further contended that although the father has remarried and is living with his second wife and her children, but that would not legally disentitle him to get his minor girl in his custody and guardianship. The father in spite of his second marriage can very well safeguard the interest of the minor and can properly lookafter her with all care, love and affection. Learned counsel further stressed that the conduct and behaviour of the step mother towards his minor daughter from the first wife can very well be moulded, controlled and softened in the event it would be found that she is misbehaving with her and is not taking proper care and is not giving due comfort and affection. Learned counsel thus urged that Km. Madhushila be ordered to be given in the custody and guardianship of the appellant by setting aside the impugned order passed by learned lower court. 4. I have carefully considered the above arguments and have gone through the record and I find no merit in the above contentions of the learned counsel. 5. It is well settled that whenever a question arises before court pertaining to the custody of a minor child the matter is to be decided not on the consideration of the legal rights of the parties but on the sole predominant criterion of what would best serve the interest and welfare of the minor (see Mrs. Elszabsih Dins hah v. Arvand M. Dinshah and another AIR 1987 SC 3 ). In my opinion, in the matter relating to appointment of guardian of the person and property of the minor under section 25 G&W Acts, the court has to consider that is in the best interest and welfare of the infant or minor child, what her prospects are for her overall growth and development if the present custody and guardianship is not interfered with and also the factors to what her position will be if the minor is taken by the father to live with him, who has already married another lady. It is well known that the minor child would not feel homely and comfortable in the company of the step mother although the minor any be provided with ail love, affection and comfort by the step mother. Moreover, the step mother having children of her own would naturally be devoted to take care of her own children although she may not deliberately neglect or treat with cruelty the step minor child whose physical, mental and intellectual growth would suffer adversely even by the slightest misbehavior of remotest act of misdemeanour or any act of omission or commission on her part exhibiting her negligence towards the step minor child even if done unintentionally and without anybias. The father, who has married another lady, also cannot be expected to provide all love, affection and care to the minor child from his first wife while living with his second wife and her children because it is but natural that he would be more attached and devoted to them. The minor who has been living eversince the childhood with the maternal grandfather from whom she has received best care, comfort, love and affection would naturally not feel comfortable after removal from his custody and guardianship. Thus her removal from the custody of maternal grandfather would certainly tell upon her physical, mental and intellectual growth. It would, therefore, not serve the best interest and welfare of the minor to give her in the custody and guardianship of the father who has taken a second wife and is living with her. 6. Having carefully considered the matter I am of the opinion that howsoever paramount the right of the father may be, it would be liable to be defeated where it is shown that it is better in the interest of the minor and for his welfare that he should remain with the person with whom he is presently living. If the minor has for many years from the tender age lived with the mother and maternal grandfather and has been well cared for and during that time the minor's father remarried and has taken no care of the minor except making lip sympathy, then there would be no question for the removal of the minor from custody of the mother or maternal grand father or other near relation with whom minor is presently living. Such being the position in the present case as well and, as such, I find no error has been committed by thelearned court below in passing the impugned order rejecting the application of the appellant. 7. It was, however, further urged on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is a person of substantial means and good status and is also capable of providing to his minor daughter all comforts, love and affection and he would also be able to control temperament and behaviour of his second wife towards minor in case he be granted custody and guardianship of his minor daughter. This contention is hardly acceptable. The father may be endowed with substantial means and may be capable of providing the minor all that which is required for her physical growth and mental and intellectual development but that would not by itself constitute a valid ground for changing the custody of the minor from the custody of the maternal grandfather with whom she has been living continuously eversince her childhood and has received due care, comfort and affection. It is hardly acceptable that she would not feel discomfort, both physical and mental in the company of her stepmother who would naturally be more devoted and careful ia looking after her own children and so she would not be able to give all love, affection and care in spite of her best efforts. The love and affection of the father would also be naturally divided as he is living with his second wife whose temperament and behaviour towards minor can hardly be controlled by the father. Nothing has come on record to indicate that the maternal grandfather, who is al o a person of substantial means and status, has acted in the manner detrimental to the interest and welfare of the minor Km. Madhushila. He has so far provided her best care and comfort and she has received all paternal love and affections from him. Nothing has come on record to indicate that the maternal grandfather, who is al o a person of substantial means and status, has acted in the manner detrimental to the interest and welfare of the minor Km. Madhushila. He has so far provided her best care and comfort and she has received all paternal love and affections from him. The father who has remarried and is living with his second wife and her children, cannot successfully press for the (sic.) of the custody and guardianship of the minor unless it is proved that |the person with whom the minor is living since childhood is guilty of acting against the interest and welfare of the minor and has shown any lack of interest in giving proper care for her physical growth and intellectual and mental development. In my opinion the interest and welfare of the minor would be better served by allowing her to remain under the guardianship and in the custody of her maternal grandfather, who has so well cared for her and that this consideration overrides the claim of the father to the custody of the minor land I may also add that this will hold good with added force when the father has remarried another lady and is living with her and her children. 8. In the present case I find that the learned District Judge after taking into consideration the evidence on record and keeping in mind the paramount consideration of the welfare of the minor, has rightly rejected the Application of the appellant, who has remarried and is living with his second wife and her children. There appears no legal error or infirmity in the impugned order so as to call for interference by this court. 9. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. (Appeal dismissed)