1. The respondent-Amila Devi filed a Petition under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1977 seeking her appointment as Guardian of Virshu Kumari alias Guddi, minor, aged 9 months, with the Principal District ludge, Bhaderwah on the sole ground that being the maternal grandmother of the minor, she could take care of her well than the appellant, her natural father. 2. During the pendency of the Petition, she moved an Application seeking interim custody of the minor on the ground that the appellant had contracted second marriage contrary to the assurance given by him during the proceedings that he would not so do and that the life of the minor would be spoiled, in presence of the step mother because there was every apprehension that the step mother may cause damage to the minors life. 3. Despite opportunities allowed, the appellant did not respond to the Interim Application. 4. Finding that the appellant had not filed Objections to the Interim Application, the learned District Judge handed over the minor to the respondent vide his Order dated 22.05.2012 providing that in case the appellant desired to meet his ward he may move Motion for its consideration on merits. 5. The appellant is aggrieved by the learned District Judge's order and is, therefore, in Appeal there against. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the Appeal, considered their submissions and perused the records of the trial Court. 7. In allowing interim custody of the minor in favour of the respondent, the following factors are indicated to have weighed with the learned District Judge:- 1) The appellant had contracted second marriage despite his assurance that he would not so do. 2) The parents of the appellant were involved in the murder of the minor's mother. 3) The appellant too was responsible and involved in the murder of his wife. 4) The treatment of the step mother can be perceived keeping in view the social and economic background of both the parties. 5) The house of the appellant was surcharged with tension and unhealthy environment. 3) The appellant too was responsible and involved in the murder of his wife. 4) The treatment of the step mother can be perceived keeping in view the social and economic background of both the parties. 5) The house of the appellant was surcharged with tension and unhealthy environment. 6) The minor was not living in an atmosphere where his ethical and physical welfare could be looked after and every endeavour was made by the appellant, by holding the custody of the child, to use the minor at every stage, as a weapon and bargain with the respondent to get away from the serious allegations of murder in which his father and mother had been arrested and facing trial. 8. Perusal of the records, however, reveals that there was absolutely no material worth the name with the learned District Judge, on the basis whereof, any such factor as had weighed with him be said to have been established warranting handing over custody of the minor to the respondent, who, as admitted by her learned counsel, was more than 70 years of age. 9. The respondent's Application for appointment of Guardian of the minor does not contain any allegation of any type whatsoever against the appellant that may disentitle him to the custody of the minor, in that, all that is pleaded by her, is a bald statement that the minor can be taken care of well by her than the appellant, and nothing beyond that. 10. The Interim Application too does not talk about all those factors that have been used against the appellant by the learned District Judge except that the appellant had violated his own statement and contracted second marriage and in presence of the step mother, the life of the minor would be spoiled and that there was every apprehension that the step mother would cause damage to the minors life. 11. There is, however, no material or evidence on records, on the basis whereof, it be said that the presence of step mother in appellant's house may prove detrimental to the interests of the minor. No act, overt act or omission is attributed to the step mother that may be construed leading to damage to the minor's life. 12. The learned District Judge has not cared to record the statements of the parties before dealing with the Interim Application. No act, overt act or omission is attributed to the step mother that may be construed leading to damage to the minor's life. 12. The learned District Judge has not cared to record the statements of the parties before dealing with the Interim Application. The Affidavit relied upon by him too is unworthy Of credence and reliance, in that, the statement made in the Application/Affidavit is verified to be true, both on the basis of personal knowledge, as also on belief, but without indicating as to which paragraphs of the Application were true to the deponent's belief and others on his personal knowledge. 13. It can, therefore, be safely concluded that the learned District Judge has passed the order questioned in the Appeal without there being any material in support of the factors that had weighed with him in allowing interim custody of the minor in favour of the respondent. 14. The Scheme of the Guardians and Wards Act may not permit appointment of a Guardian by the Court in certain cases which, inter alia, include the minor whose father was living, unless, in the opinion of the Court, he was found unfit to be the Guardian. 15. The appellant, who is the natural Guardian of the minor, could not, therefore, be deprived of the custody of his minor daughter, unless the Court would form an opinion, and that too, on the basis of some or other material that the appellant was not fit to be the Guardian. 16. There is not even a whisper about any act, overt act or omission of the appellant or even of the step mother that may be construed as appellant's disablement to be the Guardian of the minor. 17. In the circumstances, deprivation of the appellant of the custody of the minor, merely on the presumption that the step mother would not take care of her may not be justified. 18. The learned District Judge appears to have passed the order impugned in the Appeal only on the basis of the submissions made before him by the respondent little realizing that on mere submissions, which were not supported by any material, a Judicial Order may not be warranted. 19. 18. The learned District Judge appears to have passed the order impugned in the Appeal only on the basis of the submissions made before him by the respondent little realizing that on mere submissions, which were not supported by any material, a Judicial Order may not be warranted. 19. One of the factors that had weighed with the learned District Judge in passing the impugned order is the appellant's re-marrying after the death of his wife against the assurance tendered by him during the course of the proceedings. Marriage of the appellant, after the death of his earlier wife, cannot be construed as disqualification for the appellant to be the Guardian of the minor when nothing abnormal was attributed to the appellant's conduct vis-a-vis minor after his marriage. 20. Yet another factor that had weighed with the learned District Judge was that the appellant too was involved in the murder of the minor's mother and her custody could not, therefore, be allowed to him. The facts are, however otherwise, in that, the police is not stated to have booked the appellant for the murder of his wife and the Final Police Report, as admitted by the learned counsel for the parties, is stated to have been filed only against the parents of the appellant. 21. The facts of the case amply demonstrate that the learned District Judge has acted in haste in recording findings against the appellant without there being any material or evidence in support thereof. He has thus erred in delivering the custody of the minor to the respondent. 22. Although the order passed by the learned District Judge may not as such be appealable, yet the manner in which he has acted in recording findings against the appellant without there being any evidence or material in support thereof and deprived him of the custody of the minor, calls for exercise of jurisdiction of superintendence under Section 104 of the Constitution of the Jammu and Kashmir to set the wrong committed by the learned District Judge, right, to advance the cause of justice. 23. For all what has been said above, the order passed by the learned District Judge cannot, therefore, be sustained. It is, accordingly, quashed. 23. For all what has been said above, the order passed by the learned District Judge cannot, therefore, be sustained. It is, accordingly, quashed. Learned District Judge is directed to hear and determine the respondent's Application afresh in accordance with law after affording the parties opportunity to produce such evidence or material as they may like so to do in support of or in opposition to the Application. 24. Learned District Judge shall also expedite proceedings in the respondent's Petition under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act so as to conclude it within a period of three months. Until further orders by the Court on the respondents Petition or Application, as the case may be, the custody of the minor-Virshu Kumari alias Guddi shall remain with the appellant as it was before the passing of order dated 22.05.2012. The respondent is directed to deliver the custody of the minor to the appellant forthwith.