ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred as against order dated 19.7.2005 passed by Civil Judge, Panna in Guardian Ward Case No. 1/2004, the application was filed by Shashikant Pandey father of Utkarsh, aged 5 years. 2. It is not in dispute that Utkarsh for whose custody the case has been filed is son of Shashikant Pandey born out of second marriage. Shashikant Pandey performed two marriages. First was performed in 1983, from which one daughter was born. First wife died in 1989. Thereafter he performed marriage with Aradhana in the year 1990. Second wife Aradhana died on 9.10.2000 leaving behind two daughters and a son Utkarsh. Ekta Pandey daughter born out of first wedlock and two daughters born out of second wedlock are residing with father is not in dispute. Aradhana died, as she caught fire accidentally. Age of Utkarsh was 10-11 months at the time of death of second wife Aradhana. 3. It was averred in the application that son Utkarsh was taken by mother-in-law and material uncles. Utkarsh was going to the school at the time when he was residing with his father. In absence of his father, Utkarsh was taken by the mother-in-law and maternal uncles in compliance of search warrant issued by SDM, Panna. The maternal uncles are unlawful elements. There are several cases registered against them. Shashikant Pandey is the father and natural guardian of Utkarsh. Mother-in-law of Shashikant Pandey is also aged and unable to look after the welfare of Utkarsh, hence the custody of minor son Utkarsh has been prayed. 4. In the reply the averments have been denied. It is contended that the applicant is a cruel person. He got rid of Aradhana. She died in doubtful circumstances. He was responsible for the death of Aradhana. The facts mentioned in the application are incorrect. Applicant is in service and is unable to look after the welfare of his minor son. Utkarsh is obtaining education, they are looking after the welfare of Utkarsh in proper manner. 5. The Court below has found that the applicant is the natural guardian being the father of Utkarsh. It is necessary that for proper look after he resides with his father, hence custody has been ordered to be handed over to father. 6. Utkarsh is obtaining education, they are looking after the welfare of Utkarsh in proper manner. 5. The Court below has found that the applicant is the natural guardian being the father of Utkarsh. It is necessary that for proper look after he resides with his father, hence custody has been ordered to be handed over to father. 6. Shri Sheel Nagu, learned counsel appearing for appellants has submitted that custody of minor son Utkarsh ought not to have been given to the respondent. The welfare of minor son is supreme consideration in such matters. As the respondent is in service, he cannot look after the welfare of minor and attend to his needs as such the impugned order directing handing over of the custody of minor son Utkarsh be set aside. 7. Shri Girish Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent has submitted that three other daughters are residing with the respondent. No criminal case was filed in case death had taken place in doubtful circumstances. Death took place after a decade of marriage. Father cannot be deprived of custody of his son. He is not disqualified in any manner. He is looking after three daughters and by now they have grown up. The age of first daughter is more than 20 years whereas age of other two daughters are 9-11 years, as they are residing with the father obviously son can also safely reside with his father. It is for the father to look after the interest of his only son. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, no doubtful circumstances are brought out against the respondent in the evidence which may disentitle him the custody of his son. He is the natural guardian being the father of Utkarsh. He is entitled to have the custody of his minor son. He is looking after the needs of three daughters, they are residing with him and obtaining education. Even for education of Utkarsh arrangements were made, he was admitted in school by the respondent and it is also apparent from the statement of Utkarsh that he used to sleep with his father. Considering the fact that no criminal case was registered, no report was lodged as to unnatural death of Aradhana and subsequent statement made that she used to be harassed by the respondent, has been rightly discarded by the Court below. Considering the fact that no criminal case was registered, no report was lodged as to unnatural death of Aradhana and subsequent statement made that she used to be harassed by the respondent, has been rightly discarded by the Court below. I find that the approach of the Court below in handing over the custody of Utkarsh to his father, the natural guardian, is based on sound reasonings and is in welfare of minor son. Atmosphere would be provided in the family not only by the father but also by the three sisters residing with their father and there is absolutely no reason to hold that father cannot look after the interest of his only minor son. Ultimately Utkarsh has to settle in the family of his father and sister and live with them. So as to safeguard his future it is necessary that he is brought up in the family. There is no such circumstance brought out in the statement of minor son or from other evidence so as to make out a case against the respondent. Thus, custody has been rightly handed over to the respondent. I find no ground to interfere in the order. 9. Resultantly, appeal being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.