S. B. SAKRIKAR, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant (original appellant) has directed this appeal against the order dated 13. 12:1994 rendered by III additional District Judge, Ratlam in Civil Misc. Case No. 12/94, thereby rejecting the application of the applciant filed under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short, 'the Act') for the custody of his minor son Aftab and daughter Asam. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the appellant and respondent got married in accordance with Mohammedan Law and lived together for about 12 years. Out of the said wedlock one son and daughter respectively aged 11 years and 31/2 years presently, were born. Due to some differences between the appellant and the respondent, the applicant divorced the non-applicant under the Mohammedan law on 29. 6. 1992 and thereafter the non-applicant alongwith the aforesaid minor children went to her father's house at Village gondal, District Rajkot, (Gujarat) and started living separately from the applicant. The applicant filed the application under Section 10 of the Act for declaring him the natural guardian and for handling over the custody of the minor children Aftab and Asma. The notice was issued to the non-applicant but she did not appear before the trial court. The trial court proceeded ex-parte and after recording the statement of the non-applicant dismissed the petition. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal against the impugned order of the trial court. ( 3 ) I have heard Mr. Kochatta learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Lathia learned counsel for the respondent. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant during the course of the argument, contended that, as the age of minor girl Asma was 31/2 years at the filing of the application and in view of the provisions of the Mohammedan Law, the custody of the minor female child normally remains with the mother till she attains the age of puberty as such, he does not want to press this appeal with regard to handling over the custody of the minor daughter Asma. With regard to minor son Aftab learned counsel contended that under the Mohammedan law, natural father of the minor son is always considered to be natural guardian. With regard to minor son Aftab learned counsel contended that under the Mohammedan law, natural father of the minor son is always considered to be natural guardian. From his uncorroborated statement; it is proved that welfare of the minor Aftab is in the his interest, if remains in the custody of his father/ appellant. The trial court has committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the appellant in to to. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, supported the order of the trial court. However, he submitted that because of want of proper service of summons on her she could not get an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal. The counsel submitted that in this appeal, he has filed -certain documents which clearly indicate that welfare of the minor Aftab is, in living in the custody of respondent/ mother. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is found that the case was proceeded ex-parte against the respondent and therefore, uncorroborated and solitary statement of the appellant only is available in this case. It is well settled principle of law that in the matters of appointment of guardian of the minor and their custody, the Court should always consider the evidence objectively and record the finding that in whose custody the welfare of minor is advantageous. In my opinion, in this case necessary evidence for recording the finding on the aforesaid point was not available, even the minor son Aftab was not called or produced before the Court for knowing his consent, In the circumstances, I consider it proper to remand the case for retrial with the direction to give sufficient opportunity to both the parties to lead the evidence on the point of welfare of minor Aftab if given in the custody of the appellant. or respondent. It is also directed that before coming to the conclusion, the Court shall also call the minor son in the Court for obtaining his consent. ( 7 ) IN the result, this appeal is partly allowed. or respondent. It is also directed that before coming to the conclusion, the Court shall also call the minor son in the Court for obtaining his consent. ( 7 ) IN the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The order of the trial court is set aside only with regard to rejecting the application of the appellant for the custody of minor son aftab, and only with regard to Aftab, the case is remanded back to the trial court for fresh enquiry and order in terms of the directions as indicated above. No orders as to costs. ( 8 ) PARTIES are directed to appear before the. trial court for further proceedings in the matter on 1st December, 1997. Appeal partly allowed. Order of trial court set aside qua the applicationm for the custody of minor son only. .