JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the Order dated 21.8.1993 in Case No.6 of 1989 by Civil Judge, Class-I, Mahasamund registered on the application of the petitioner under section 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 for the custody of his son minor Mahendra Kumar. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are : The parties to the dispute were married in the year 1982 and a son Mahendra Kumar was born on 15.1.1984 out of the said wedlock. It is alleged that the grand father of the petitioner Pancham and Badhwanteen Bai had brought him up from his childhood and they were residing with the appellant/petitioner. They were looking after and showering their affections on minor Mahendra Kumar. The grand-father of the petitioner Pancham suffered from paralysis and on medical advice started having non-vegetarian diet. This was objected to by the respondent. The dispute between the parties on the above score resulted in an attempt by the respondent to commit suicide by self-immolation. The respondent thereafter started residing separately and had taken away her son, minor Mehendra Kumar, who was then aged 5 1/2 years. The petitioner alleged that he wanted to bring up the minor properly in congenial atmosphere, which is not possible if the minor resides with his mother, the respondent. The respondent is a bad-character woman and is living in adultery with one Santosh Kumar. She has no financial capacity to bring up the minor Mahendra Kumar. The respondent/wife contested the petition. It was alleged by her that she, with the aid of her father, was bringing up her son, minor Mahendra Kumar properly and he is a student of Block Primary School, Mission Compond, Mahasamund where he is getting proper education. She is spending sufficient amount for the upbringing of her son. He would not be properly educated if he is given in the custody of his father. The learned lower Court, after considering the material on record, came to the conclusion that the best interest of the minor would be served if he is permitted to continue in the custody of his mother. Therefore, the petition of the appellant for custody of his minor son was dismissed by the impugned order. The learned counsel for the appellant, relying of Jugan Bai v. Mohd. Therefore, the petition of the appellant for custody of his minor son was dismissed by the impugned order. The learned counsel for the appellant, relying of Jugan Bai v. Mohd. Khan [1996 (II) MPWN 44] has urged that his minor son is aged more than 15 years now. His consent be obtained and he be handed over in the custody of his father, the appellant. He has prayed that the case be remanded with the above direction. Nobody has appeared to contest the application on behalf of the respondent/wife. The perusal of the impugned-judgment and the evidence placed on record before the lower Court would disclose that the minor is being properly brought up and was getting proper education, while he was in the custody of his mother. The respondent had examined the Class Teacher Sulochana Benzamin (NAW-1) who testified that minor Mahendra is a bright student and is getting proper education. The respondent Uttara Kumari (NAW-2) has stated, that she is properly educating her son and that she is capable of bringing him up. She has also denied charges of adultery levelled against her by the appellant. The learned lower Court, after appreciation of evidence, has recorded a finding that there is no material to hold that the respondent is living in adultery. It thus appears that after consideration of the evidence and material available on record, it was held that the best interest of the minor would be served if he is permitted to continue in the custody of his mother. The finding as above appears to be justified. It is true that long period has elapsed since the application u/s 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act was filed by the petitioner for the custody of minor son Mahendra Kumar, who was then aged 5 1/2 years and he now must be aged more than 15 years. However, simply because the minor Mahendra Kumar has grown up that by itself is no reason for remand of the case. In Jugan Bai's case (supra) cited and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the remand was ordered in view of the consent of both the parties to that affect in that case. Such is not the case here. No useful purpose would be served by the remand of the case for further enquiry for the ascertainment of wishes of the minor Mahendra Kumar. Such is not the case here. No useful purpose would be served by the remand of the case for further enquiry for the ascertainment of wishes of the minor Mahendra Kumar. Therefore, since the impugned-order does not suffer from any infirmity, no interference therein is called for. The appeal being devoid of substance is dismissed accordingly.