JUDGMENT A.B. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.N. Meitei and Smt. Rosemary, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. This witnesses a fierce legal battle between the grand fathers one from paternal side when the other is maternal grand-father for guardianship of the 4 unfortunate minor children who lost their parents in a very pathetic and tragic motor vehicle accident. All those 4 children including 3 (three) daughters and 1 (one) son of Late Lalhlimputa Khiangte and Smt. Lalchhuanmawii have been deprived of their parental warmth and care at a time when they are to play on the lap of their parents. The cruel hand of destiny, snatched their parents leaving them in the doldrums to see the current litigation of their grandparents claiming each of them to be the fittest person to maintain them and look after their betterment and welfare in the coming days till they attain majority. The basic point involved in this case is as to who would be the rightful person upon whom the responsibilities can be entrusted for the welfare of those minor children. 3. The narration of the facts, in brief would be necessary for proper resolution of the point raised in this case. Four minor children namely, 1) Laltlanchuahi-11 years, 2) Lalthanmawii-9 years, 3) Lalmuanawmi-6 years and 4) Lalremrusta-4 years, were born out of the wedlock of Shri Lalhlimpuia and Smt. Lalchhuanmawii, (both since deceased) who got married themselves in the year 1991. When the couples, on 21-4-03, were coming back from Haulawng after attending Seventh Day Adventist Conference and also after visiting the respondent, being the father of the deceased Smt. Lalchhuanmawii at Chhipphir, they met with an accident in their own vehicle. The father of the children, Lalhlimpuia died on the spot when their mother died after 2 days succumbing to the injuries. By 23-4-03 all the four children, as desired by the Almighty, have become orphans. Immediately after the death of their parents, the instant tag of war between the appellant and the respondent in this appeal have ensued over the guardianship of the four children. 4. The respondent moved an application before the Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawl (for short, the S.D.C.C.) seeking guardianship certificate for the youngest minor son i.e. Lalremruata. Immediately after the death of their parents, the instant tag of war between the appellant and the respondent in this appeal have ensued over the guardianship of the four children. 4. The respondent moved an application before the Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawl (for short, the S.D.C.C.) seeking guardianship certificate for the youngest minor son i.e. Lalremruata. At the same time, the appellant also approached the same Court praying for issuance seeking the same certificate for all the 4 (four) children. The notice were issued to the parties by the SDCC asking them to appear before the Court and to file written statements, if any, arraying the respondent as plaintiff and the appellant as defendant in a Case bearing No. 30/03. 5. On examination of 4 (four) witnesses two from each side of the parties and after proper appreciation of the material evidence and other relevant materials available on record as well as upon evidence and other relevant materials hearing the parties in person the SDCC by order dated 11-6-03 declared joint guardianship in favour of both the parties over the minor son of Lalremruata who was the 4 years old son of the Late Lalhlimpuia. 6. Being aggrieved by the said finding of the learned Trial Court, the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the District Council Court, Aizawl (for short, 'the DCC') through RFA No. 24/03. 7. The Appellate Court after carefully going through the depositions of the witnesses and on perusal of the materials available on record took additional evidences of the three persons namely 1) Lalhmangaihzuali, 2) V. Lalrinthanga and 3) T. Lalhmangaihzama. 8. After hearing the parties and also taking into account testimony of the witnesses on record, the Appellate Court by impugned judgment and order dated 4-9-03 found the respondent C. Zomuana to be the worthy person to become a guardian not only for the physical welfare of the children but also for spiritual betterment and judging all sides, the appeal was dismissed. 9. Assailing the impugned judgment and order, Mr. Meitei, learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the Appellate Court committed a grave error of law as well on facts accepting the respondent to be the rightful guardian of the minors particularly, Lalremruata, youngest male child of Late Lalhlimpuia. 9. Assailing the impugned judgment and order, Mr. Meitei, learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the Appellate Court committed a grave error of law as well on facts accepting the respondent to be the rightful guardian of the minors particularly, Lalremruata, youngest male child of Late Lalhlimpuia. According to him, the respondent is not at all financially sound so as to enable him to take the responsibility of the 4 children for their betterment and welfare. Nowhere in the evidence he could proved his sound economic condition for his entitlement for such guardianship. On the other hand, the appellant is a responsible person with financial stability and besides he, being a paternal grandfather and as per the Mizo Customary Law, which aims at a patriarchal society, guardianship must go to him. 10. Refuting those arguments canvassed on behalf of the appellant, Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel for the respondent, has forcefully argued that the welfare of the children being the paramount consideration in granting the guardianship certificate is not only dependant on economic condition but the same always depends upon other condition like physical welfare, educational upliftment including the spiritual betterment. He has further contended that the respondent is aged about 47 years whereas the appellant is an old man aged about 72 years who himself is dependant upon others for his old age. At the same time, it is also argued, he earlier deserted his wife being the mother of the deceased son, and married another woman. The appellant is now living with his second wife and there is every and all possibilities that those 4 children will not get concerned love and affection from their step grand-mother. On religious side also, he has emphasized that since Lalhlimpuia was before his death was an active and renowned member of Lunglei Seventh Day Adventist Church, their 4 children follow the same of their parents whereas the appellate is a Presbyterian, a different denomination to that of the respondent. Taking into consideration all the aspects, the Appellate Court has, therefore, decided the guardianship in favour of the respondent and as such no wrong was committed by the DCC. 11. Taking into consideration all the aspects, the Appellate Court has, therefore, decided the guardianship in favour of the respondent and as such no wrong was committed by the DCC. 11. Be it mentioned herein that as per Order 3 of the Assam High Court (Jurisdiction Over District Council Court's) Order, 1954 (for short, 'the Order') and also in view of the decision of the Court in Kaidis Mary Kharkanger v. K.S. Theirit Lyngdoh AIR 1969 Gau 92 , Pachhunga v. Zokhumi, reported in(1989) 2 GLR 28. Though the appeal has been filed as Second appeal, the same can be treated as First appeal and as such the High Court can go into the facts to re-assess or re-appreciate the evidence on record. 12. In view of the above, I have meticulously scanned the depositions of all the witnesses. From the deposition of the appellant, it is clear that the expenses incurred for hiring the motor vehicle for carrying the dead body were borne by the Seventh Day Church. He admitted that he divorced his wife but never stopped looking after his children. Though he married second wife, but he had always good relation with the children. He has three sons including the deceased. They are all engaged in the same business workshop of T.V. repairing and the deceased was his eldest son. 13. Mrs. Khuangvawthangi, wife of the appellant in her evidence, deposed that the trunk (dispute was regarding breaking of trunk) was not locked and there was no question of breaking open the trunk (she) admitted that she was divorced by the appellant but did not have any bad relation with her children when she came down to Lunglei in the year 1988, she stayed with her son of the deceased. In 1997 her husband married another woman and she also got married to one Laithuama of Myanmar in the year 2002. 14. The respondent, in his examination, stated that he applied for guardianship because he and his wife along with their grandchildren belonged to the same denomination whereas the appellant and his second wife were practising the faith of different denomination. The appellant married another woman by divorcing his earlier wife. It has come in his evidence that the deceased, father of the children, never regarded the appellant as his father as he got married to another woman divorcing his mother. The appellant married another woman by divorcing his earlier wife. It has come in his evidence that the deceased, father of the children, never regarded the appellant as his father as he got married to another woman divorcing his mother. According to him, the divorced wife of the appellant would also not be proper person for guardianship as presently she belonged to Myanmar. His testimony is that the deceased was never regarded by him as son-in-law but he treated him as his own son. When at the time death of Lalhlimpuia, the dead body was taken by him to his residence. He informed about the accident to the appellant but he did not do anything as he was residing separately and not living together. Ambulance and other vehicles were hired by him and all the expenses thereof were paid by him. 15. Another witness V. Vanhnuna, being an independent witness, stated that the statement of the appellant was not fully correct and when he informed about the death of his son, the appellant simply answered him by saying that he did not know what to do. 16. From the depositions of those witnesses and also upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that basically 4 children belonged to the religious sect that has been practicing by the respondent when the appellant is having allegiance to a faith different to that of respondent. Admittedly, the appellant is having his second wife and also being an old aged man, in my opinion, it is not possible for him to look after the minor children. On the other hand, the maternal grand father, being aged about 47 years and that his wife still surviving, definitely they would be in a position to render all for their love and affection to the minor children and to do all the needful for the welfare of the children. 17. It is settled law that for the purpose of deciding the question of guardianship the welfare of the children is the paramount consideration and predominant factor. Although the expression 'the welfare of the minor' as occurred in Section 17 of the Act have not been defined or explained anywhere in the Act, the same needs to be used in a broader sense. It could not be confined to the proposition that the welfare of the minor depends only in money or physical comfort. Although the expression 'the welfare of the minor' as occurred in Section 17 of the Act have not been defined or explained anywhere in the Act, the same needs to be used in a broader sense. It could not be confined to the proposition that the welfare of the minor depends only in money or physical comfort. It may be extended to moral, educational and spiritual welfare too. Besides, the environment in the house of the petitioner, must be conducive to the welfare of the minor. 18. Keeping in mind the above parameters, this Court each of the firm opinion that the appellant cannot be accepted to be the guardian of the minor children and accordingly this Court finds no illegality, irregularity and/or any jurisdictional error committed by the learned appellate Court holding the respondent as the right person to become the guardian of the minors. 19. It is also to be noted that concededly this appeal has been preferred against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. 20. In view of what has been discussed and observed above, this Court does find that this appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 21. It is noted that though the guardianship of the minors has been entrusted upon the respondent, all the four children who are in their tender age, should not also be deprived of paternal grand father's natural love and affection and warmth and feeling. Considering that emotional aspects, this Court feels that all the children may be given the liberty to meet and stay with the appellant as and when they wish and desire. It is ordered accordingly. It is made clear that nobody shall put any pressure, force and/or compulsion in any manner upon the children to do or act anything against their will and wish. 22. In the result, this second appeal stands allowed. Appeal allowed