JUDGMENT 1. - By The Court This appeal under the Guardians and Wards Act has been filed by Gulab Chand Sharma against the judgment and decree of the District Judge Jaipur District Jaipur dated 3.10.1981 allowing the application of Govind Narain Sharma for custody of his minor son Chintu alias Chandra Shekhar. 2. The said application of Govind Narain Sharma was filed under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890. It was contested by the appellant contending that Govind Narain Sharma was married to Kusum Lata Sharama daughter of the appellant on 9.5.75. Kusum Lata Sharma was subsequently murdered by the respondent Govind Narain Sharma and as such he was prosecuted for the defence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After release on bail he went to take custody of Chintu to the appellant's house but was refused and therefore the application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act was moved by him for securing the custody of the minor. 3. The appellant contested the application and filed his reply and refuted all the allegations which were to the knowledge of the respondent false. It was contended by the appellant that it was absolutely false that the respondent had good relations with his wife. 4. After closure of evidence the appellant filed five applications on 18.8.1891 along with 13 affidavits. These affidavits were relating to the conduct character and nature of the respondent. 5. The trial court rejected all these applications and did not accept the aforesaid affidavits. Against this order a revision was filed in this Court by the appellant which was numbered as S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 455 of 1981. The revision was dismissed on the ground that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the incorrectness in the order could not be said to be that of jurisdiction of the trial court. However the High Court observed that those objections the appellant would be entitled to take in the appeal against the final order passed by the trial court if so needed. 6. The trial court allowed the application filed under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act by the respondent for custody of Chintu by the impugned judgment dated 3.10.1981. Against this judgment the present appeal has been filed. 7. 6. The trial court allowed the application filed under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act by the respondent for custody of Chintu by the impugned judgment dated 3.10.1981. Against this judgment the present appeal has been filed. 7. Under the order the respondent had become entitled to the custody of the minor child. However as a result of stay obtained by the appellant the said judgment could not be given effect to and consequently the minor Chintu alias Chandra Shekhar is with the appellant. 8. It is true that Govind Narain Sharma is the natural guardian of the minor under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. Counsel however argued that even though the said respondent was acquitted of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for which he was prosecuted for having committed the murder of the mother of the minor Chintu. Relations in between the mother and respondent were bound to be bitter and that it was not in the interest of the minor that his custody by given to the respondent. Counsel there- after drew my attention to 13 affidavits which were not taken on record by the trial court and submitted that the respondent had been prosecuted for having committed murder of the mother of the minor Chintu. To prove that the conduct character and nature of the respondent was not such that he could be entrusted the custody of the child. Counsel also showed that the minor was studying in a Montessori school at that time and therefore it was in the interest of the minor that custody be permitted to be retained by the appellant. The only interest of the appellant was to get proper education given to the child Chintu so that he could earn his livelihood and did not fall in line with his father Govind Narain Sharma. 9. Having heard counsel for the appellant it appears to me that since Chandra Shekhar alias Chintu the minor is about sixteen years of age it would be in the interest of the child as well as all concerned that his wishes are also ascertained. At that time when the application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act was being tried in the trial court there was no occasion to do so as the minor was not in a position to indicate the same. At that time when the application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act was being tried in the trial court there was no occasion to do so as the minor was not in a position to indicate the same. The affidavits and other papers filed by the appellant in the court below are also relevant to enable the court to form an opinion whether the interest of the minor lay in giving his custody to the respondent. These papers were wrongly rejected by the court below. 10. Consequently the appeal is allowed judgment and order of the court below is set aside and the case is remanded to it for afresh decision in the light of the observations made above and also ascertaining the wishes of the minor Chintu alias Chandra Shekhar and taking into consideration the rejected papers. 11. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******