Judgement This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 30-4-93 passed in G.C. No. 52/91 by the learned District Judge, Barpeta. 2. The appellant as petitioner filed an application on 29-7-91 praying for granting of Guardianship certificate with respect to the person of her minor daughter Anowara aged 9 years. The appellants husband who was a U.B. Constable died in a road accident leaving behind the appellant and her minor daughter Anowara. The Respondent No. 1 Mstt. Saburjannessa along with 4 others were made the opposite parties in that petition in which the respondent No. 1, the mother-in-law of the appellant contested. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge, Barpeta by his order dated 8-11-91 issued guardianship certificate in favour of appellant - Rahima Khatun. After sometime the opposite party No. 1 the mother-in-law of the appellant filed an application on 11-8-92 in G.C. No. 52 of 1991 alleging that the appellant, since remarried with another person and as the minor daughter of the appellant staying with the respondent No. 1, the said guardianship certificate issued on 8-11-91 in favour of the appellant be rescinded. 3. The appellant filed objection against the application filed by her mother-in-law. After hearing both parties the learned District Judge, Barpeta rescinded the said guardinaship certificate issued in favour of the appellant and appointed the respondent/opposite party No. 1 as Guardian of person and property of Anowara. 4. The learned court below on the point of re-marriage of the appellant led evidences and both oral and documentary evidence proved the re-marriage of the appellant. 5. The appellant challenged the finding of the Court below on the ground that the alleged marriage is not a valid marriage and she (Opposite Party No. 1) remarried another husband and the document exhibited though registered have been accepted only to save herself. The Exhibit 1 is the document. On perusal of the document it appears that it is a Kabilnama executed by Md. Khandakar and Mrs. Rahima Khatun. It is also signed by the appellant also. 6. Apparently this document was registered document. The point for consideration arises whether it is a valid marriage under the Mahomedan Law. Section 252 of the Mahomedan Law provides for Essentials of a Marriage. This Section reads as follows :- "252. Essentials of a Marriage. Khandakar and Mrs. Rahima Khatun. It is also signed by the appellant also. 6. Apparently this document was registered document. The point for consideration arises whether it is a valid marriage under the Mahomedan Law. Section 252 of the Mahomedan Law provides for Essentials of a Marriage. This Section reads as follows :- "252. Essentials of a Marriage. - It is essential to the validity of a marriage that, there should be a proposal made by or on behalf of one of the parties to the marriage, and an acceptance of the proposal by or on behalf of the other, in the presence and hearing of two male or one male and two female witnesses, who must be sane and adult Mahommedans. The proposal and acceptance must both be expressed at one meeting; a proposal made at one meeting and an acceptance made at another meeting do not constitute a valid marriage. Neither writing nor any religious ceremony is essential." 7. In AIR 1945 Peshawar 51 (Mt. Zainaba v. Abdul Rahman), it was held that there is no particular form in which proposal and acceptance should be made. The offer in acceptance may be either oral or in writing. Where the offer is in writing such a document is called Kabilnama which is the documentary evidence of marriage. It is necessary that the word proposal and acceptance should be such as to show the intention to establish the conjugal relation from the moment of acceptance. The marriage under Mahomedan Law is also defined under Section 252 of the Mahomedan Law. The marriage under Mahomedan Law is not a sacrament but a Civil contract between two parties of opposite sex for mutual engagement and it is called Nikah. The term Nikah means unity, literal meaning of which is sexual connection by implication of contract of marriage. It is legalized for conjugal relationship, where the term is used in Kuranic version, without reference to marriage. The requirement of the valid marriage has been defined under Section 252 of the Muslim Marriage. (a) There must be declaration of one of the contracted parties and accepted by the other, (b) The contract must be mutual contract and that contract must be made in presence of witnesses. 8. To constitute a valid marriage in Mahomedan Law it does not require to insist on any type of writing or any religious ceremony is essential. (a) There must be declaration of one of the contracted parties and accepted by the other, (b) The contract must be mutual contract and that contract must be made in presence of witnesses. 8. To constitute a valid marriage in Mahomedan Law it does not require to insist on any type of writing or any religious ceremony is essential. Even Mullah is not needed. The presence or Kazi at the time of contract between the parties can be dispensed with. The valid marriage may be contracted even though no ceremony is proved to have been taken place between the parties. The presence of rituals of ceremony is immaterial and no way affected the validity of the marriage. 9. In the case in hand, from the Ext. 1, I find it a Kabilnama which is apparently the agreement between both the parties agreed to the contract of marriage. In the above discussion I hold that the appellant has married second time and the said marriage had been contracted between both the parties. 10. The next question is, in case, if it is established that the mother of the minor married another husband, who can claim the guardianship of minor. The guardianship of a person under the Mahomedan law can be divided - (i) of the person, (ii) of property and (iii) in marriage. Custody of an infant child belongs to the mother. The mother is entitled to the custody of her male child till the age of 7 years and female child till puberty. It is also provided that though the mother has the custody of a child of tender years, this does not imply that the father has no rights whatever. The Privy Council in Imambandi v. Mutsaddi (AIR 1918 PC 11) held that it was perfectly clear that under Mahomedan Law the mother is entitled only to the custody of the person of her minor child up to a certain age according to the sex of the child. But she is not the natural guardian; the father alone, or, if he be dead, his executor is the legal guardian. The disqualification to be a guardian is, if the mother married second time. As regards the mother or a female guardian, marriage to a person not related to the child within the prohibited degrees is a bar to guardianship. But she is not the natural guardian; the father alone, or, if he be dead, his executor is the legal guardian. The disqualification to be a guardian is, if the mother married second time. As regards the mother or a female guardian, marriage to a person not related to the child within the prohibited degrees is a bar to guardianship. It is further provided that the mother does not lose the custody of her infant children merely because she is no longer the wife of her former husband, but where she marries a second husband, the custody of such children normally belongs to her former husband. In that case other relations failing the mother, by absence or disqualification, the following female relations are entitled to custody in order of priority- (i) mothers mother, how high so ever, (ii) fathers mother, how high soever and (iii) full sister and other female relations including aunts. 11. In this instant case, the opposite party No. 1 who is the grand mother of the minor claimed the guardianship of the minor and the Court rightly rescinded guardianship certificate dated 11-1-91 issued in favour of the appellant and allowed the opposite party No. 1 to be the guardian of the person and property of the child. In a series of decisions it is held that it is the discretion of the Court for the welfare of the child to consider the guardianship of the minor. 12. In this case it is seen that the Court below after taking all caution and asking the childs choice regarding guardianship the trial Court rightly decided the guardianship of the child. I find no material to interfere with the order of the Court below. In the result the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.