JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is a revision by the petitioner, Gulab Singh S/o Fatesingh, against the order dated 7th August, 1986, passed in Case No 57/86, by the VIIIth Additional Judge to the District Judge, Indore, Counsel heard. ( 2. ) SHORT facts leading to this revision are, that one Narainsingh, constable, who died in a motor accident on 28-9-1985. He was survived with his widow, three minor children, (one son and two daughters ). The petitioner is a father of the deceased Narainsingh. Non-petitioner No. 2, Ramesh alias Narayansingh, is a father of the widow, Kalpanabai. The name of the deceased was entered as owner of a house in the ownership registers of the Municipal Corporation. After his death, Rs. 19000/- were received by widow, Kalpanabai from the State Government in family benefit scheme. The widow alongwith her three children, i. e. two daughters (i) Banti, aged about 4-5 years (ii) Tina, aged about 3 years and (iii) a son, Rajkumar, aged about 2 years, was staying with in-laws. It is alleged by Kalpanabai that few days after the death of Narainsingh, her In-laws i. e. the parents and brother of deceased started ill-treating her. She and her children used to get two time meats with a great difficulty. Taunts were being passed by the family member of in laws. Out of Rs. 19000/-, Rs. 16000/- were taken by the in-laws for purchasing a tempo, which was purchased in the name of younger brother of the deceased. ( 3. ) KALPANABAI, the widow informed her father through letters from time to time about the behaviour and conduct of her in-laws. Ultimately, on 25-5-1986, the non-petitioner No. 2, the father of Kalpanabai came to her in-laws house. Kalpanabai and her children left for Burhanpur to stay with her parents. The widow is getting monthly pension of Rs. 250/-per month. About Rs. 50000/- is payable to the heirs of the deceased by the State Government. ( 4. ) THE petitioner, filed an application under Section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, (For short, the Act) wherein the petitioner prayed an appointment of guardian of the minor children for the well being of his grandson and two daughters. According to petitioner, the minors interest are not properly looked after by the parents of Kalpanabai. The custody of the minors was also prayed by the petitioner. According to petitioner, the minors interest are not properly looked after by the parents of Kalpanabai. The custody of the minors was also prayed by the petitioner. It was further alleged that the non-petitioner No. 1, i. e. the father of the widow is keeping his daughter and her minor children only in a hope to mis-appropriate the amount of Rs. 50000/-, which is to be receive shortly. During the pendency of proceedings, an application was filed under Section 12 of the Act for temporary custody and protection of the persons and property of the minors It was also submitted by the petitioner that the custody of the minor son is also required to perform ritual ceremonies, for performing ceremonies of death anniversary and offering of water which can only be done by the son, according to custom and Hindu rites. It was affirmed by the petitioner that except the well being of the minor, the petitioner is not interested in the property or in any money, whenever, such occasions like shardha etc. arise, the custody of minors be ordered to be given to the petitioner for performing such ceremonies. Petitioner also filed an application to call for the particulars of the amount which is likely to be received by the widow and the minors, in that it was also stated that after the receipt of the amount it be deposited in a scheme so that it may get higher interest. ( 5. ) THE widow, Kalpanabai, in her reply submitted that the amount would be deposited in a fixed deposit. She further, submitted that she and her children are ready to go as and when necessary for performing ritual ceremonies, if the assurance is given by the petitioner that no dispute will be raised and she and her children will not be ill-treated by in- laws. ( 6. ) LEARNED trial Court after considering the respective submissions made by the parties imposed the condition in respect of the amount that the amount as and when received by Kalpanabai, the widow of the deceased from the Government it shall be deposited by her in a fixed deposit in any nationalised bank for the period often years. This amount shall not be withdrawn by her, but the accused interest, from such deposits shall be withdrawn by her for the benefit of minor children, apparently because in Rs. This amount shall not be withdrawn by her, but the accused interest, from such deposits shall be withdrawn by her for the benefit of minor children, apparently because in Rs. 250/- four lives cannot be maintained and children cannot be educated. In its order it was also made clear that Kalpanabai will continue to get the pension for livelihood and for maintenance of the children. The trial court further ordered that in case the petitioner assures and give an undertaking to the effect that Kalpanabai and her children will not be ill-treated and the custody of the minor children will not be taken away from Kalpanabai, forcibly. The petitioner also directed to file an affidavit to that effect, then only the order or direction for performing the ritual ceremonies by the son will be passed. Thus trial Court has disposed of the application for temporary custody and production of the person and the property of the minor. ( 7. ) THE order of the trial Court is in spirit of Section 12 of the Act, which was passed after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 12 of the Act empowers the Court to pass such order, as it thinks proper for temporary custody of minors and protection of the person and property of minor. Passing of the order under Section 12 of the Act is discretionary, and the discretion has been exercised judiciously in accordance with law, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The discretion so exercised cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction which does not call for any interference, more, so, when it is an interlocutory order. ( 8. ) IN the result, this revision petition is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. 150/-, if certified. The record of the trial Court be sent immediately to the said court for proceeding with the case in accordance with law. Parties shall appear before tae trial Court on 25-7-1988.