Honble KOKJE, J. – This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the Judgment of Family Court, Jodhpur. Three questions were raised before the Family Court by the appellant by moving an application for custody of her minor daughter, claiming an amount of Rs. 6000/- alleged to be received by the respondents by way of compensation for death of the appellants husband and claiming the ornaments, utensils etc. of the ownership of the appellant which were alleged to be illegally appropriated by the respondents. (2). The appellant Smt. Naseem was married to Late Naseer Mohd. on 30th Jan. 1984. A daughter Nasrin was born to them on 28.7.1988 and a son Sabir was born on 19.8.89. Naseer Mohd. died of electrocution on 17.8.89. The appellant Naseem left the house of her husbands parents on 7.5.90. When she went to live with her father, she alleged that the respondents practiced cruelty against her on her refusal to marry her husbands younger brother, she had, therefore, to leave the house of her parents-in-law and go to reside with her parents. She also complains that she was not allowed to take Nasrin, her daughter alongwith her and she was not given the amount of Rs. 6000/- realized by her father-in-law as compensation for the death of her husband. She also claimed that the movable property which was acquired as a gift at the time of her marriage including her ornaments, utencils etc. was not allowed to be taken by her. (3). The learned Presiding Officer of the Family Court dismissed the case of the appellant holding against her on all the three counts. On the question of custody of her minor daughter the learned Presiding Officer of the Family Court found that the appellant had unreasonably refused to live with her parents-in- law and, therefore, she was not entitled to custody of the daughter. (4). The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out from Mullas Principles of Mohd. Law 19th edition from Sections 352 to 357 that mother is entitled to custody of her female child until the child attains poverty, this right is available even against the father. In the present case after the death of the father, the relatives of the father could only claim custody of the girl after she attained puberty, till then they have no right to claim custody at all. In the present case after the death of the father, the relatives of the father could only claim custody of the girl after she attained puberty, till then they have no right to claim custody at all. The learned Judge has been unnecessarily swayed away with general notions of family and matrimonial home in India. Muslim marriage is a contract which comes to an end with the death of one of the parties. Thereaftre, the relationships cannot be considered on the basis of the parties belonging to one family. There is no obligation on a Muslim widow to reside with her parents-in-law or the family of her husband. The learned Judge was clearly wrong when he depricated the conduct of the appellant in refusing to live with her parents-in-law as sufficient to deprive her of her right to custody of her female child who had not attained puberty. The finding of the learned Judge, therefore, on the point of custody cannot be sustained in view of the clear provisions of Muslim Law. As regards the finding reached by the Family Court about the welfare of the child in her living with her grand-parents we do not find that there is any basis for such a finding to be given in a case. Only because the child has been living with her grand-parents, the right of the mother cannot be negatived. As regards wishes of such a small child, it cannot be said that child can decide itself and think of the pros and cons. Moreover, when the law gives a right to a mother to the custody of her female child till she attains puberty, the question is as to whether the mother is disqualified and not whether the parents have better right. The presumption has to be that it is in the interest of the minor to be with her mother. No other facts which could dis-qualify the appellant from the custody of her female daughter who has not attained puberty has been either alleged or pointed out by the respondents or by the learned Presiding Officer of the Family Court. (5). So far as other two points are concerned, looking to the paucity of evidence on the point, the learned counsel for the appellant does not press them into service. (6). (5). So far as other two points are concerned, looking to the paucity of evidence on the point, the learned counsel for the appellant does not press them into service. (6). We, therefore, partly allow this appeal, set aside the decision of the Family Court as regards the custody of Ku. Nasrin and direct the respondents to handover the custody of Ku. Nasrin within 15 days. If they do not hand over the custody within the aforesaid period, the Family Court shall take steps to put the child in the custody of her mother. The appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.