JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. The settled law of guardianship was promulgated by Legislature under the Guardianship and Wards Act. Under the said Act of 1890, the powers have been granted to the Court, where the Court can appoint a guardian, if the Court is satisfied that it is for the "welfare" of the minor. Under the Act an order can be made for appointment of Guardian or for declaring a person as to be a Guardian of a ward. The implication of Section 7 was that as soon as the Court appoints a guardian, it substitutes the guardian already working. 2. The proceedings before the Court was involved under the Guardianship and Wards Act, exercises the power under Section 25, the power of removing a ward or taking the custody of the ward from the custody of the guardian and handing it over to other persons, which the Court feels to be appropriate and the prime consideration which is, is the welfare of the child. 3. The Act does not define the term "ward" but it literarily means the child whose interest is to be protected. 4. In the instant case, the parties to the appeal have solemnized their marriage on 27th April, 2001, and out of the wedlock, a son was born on 7th March, 2002, named as Yash Malik, who at the time when the dispute arose between them was 9 years 6 months old and was a student in M.G. Public School Muzzafarnagar. The second child, a daughter, was born on 12th April, 2005, who was named as Utkrishi. 5. The case of the appellant was that the wife has deserted him in 2011, and at the time of desertion, son Yash Mailik was in the custody of the mother and the daughter Utkrishi was in the custody of the father. There have been a series of disputes and litigations inter se one another, for example, the wife initiated proceedings under Section 498-A I.P.C. against the appellant and family members, who were arrested. Then there had been a Miscellaneous Case under Section 406 IPC by wife where maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- p.m. was awarded. 6. The dispute here in the appeal pertains to the custody of child Yash Mailk which is the basis of the present appeal from order. Then there had been a Miscellaneous Case under Section 406 IPC by wife where maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- p.m. was awarded. 6. The dispute here in the appeal pertains to the custody of child Yash Mailk which is the basis of the present appeal from order. Whereas there has been another proceedings which has been initiated by the wife for getting the guardianship and custody of the daughter Utkrishi, which is not an issue in this appeal. 7. According to the respondent while she was opposing the application for grant of custody of minor child Yash Malik, on the application filed under Section 7 read with section 25 by the appellant stated that the husband who is an Assistant Teacher in a Government Primary School, Muzzafarnagar and he was in rift with the respondent from the time he has initiated the proceedings under Section 13 before the Family Court, Muzzafarnagar for dissolution of marriage. 8. The basis of the application of the appellant was that since, admittedly, according to the wife herself, which she has contended in the proceedings for getting maintenance that she is a lady who is not having any source of income, in that backdrop, the husband sought that since she admittedly has no source of earning, the best interest of the minor son as well as his education could be served by giving custody of the son to the appellant, because since he being an Assistant Teacher, having sufficient earning would be in a better position to take care of the son. 9. It chanced so that there was a Criminal Case, being Case No. 2497 of 2013, in which the appellant is an accused for the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C. The issue involved in the said original proceedings was that the appellant was an accused of getting an employment by showing fraudulent "permanent residence certificate" in which after culmination of the trial, he has been convicted and the appeal against the said order is pending. 10. The learned Family Court, while considering the application under Section 7 read with Section 25 has not considered the inter se case of one another as raised in application and objection, but has rather only confined its findings from the view point of conviction of the appellant under Sections 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C. would create impediment in granting custody of the child to father. 11. To support the contentions, the appellant appeared in the witness box as PW1 and placed on record the salary certificate and various other evidences to show that the interest of the child could be best safeguarded if he is given in the custody of the appellant. There had been a rival evidence submitted by the respondent wife alleging the decision of the Judicial Magistrate convicting him under Sections 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C. would create impediment in granting custody of the child to the father. 12. This Court feels that the parties to the present appeal admit the marriage. They admit the facts of the two children having been born out of the marriage and in the pleadings they admit that the son is with the mother and the daughter is with the father. 13. It is also not in dispute that there have been number of criminal proceedings going on against the appellant. Either they have been concluded or at the appellate stage. 14. This Court feels that love and affection towards children and right of husband is equally available to an accused person who is an accused in criminal offences, because relation of father and son is not governed by conviction or acquittal of a person. He or she cannot be deprived from love and affection of the children irrespective of the fact he or she being convicted under any of the offence, in particular, when the offence in which conviction has been made in case of the appellant is subject matter before the Appellant Court. 15. The Guardianship and Wards Act of 1890, the Legislature in its wisdom has provided the factum of consideration to be taken care of by the court while granting or refusing the guardianship of the child. The principle Act which is a special Act for the welfare of the child do not restrict the custody of the child even from a spouse who is facing a criminal proceedings or has been convicted by the Trial Court. The conviction or acquittal has got nothing to do so far as the proceedings of Guardianship and Wards Act are concerned. 16. The consideration which the Court has to take care of is the interest of the child and before whom it would be best safeguarded. The conviction or acquittal has got nothing to do so far as the proceedings of Guardianship and Wards Act are concerned. 16. The consideration which the Court has to take care of is the interest of the child and before whom it would be best safeguarded. This Court feels that the findings recorded by the Court below with regard to the conviction under Sections 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C. on the ground that he has obtained appointment on the basis of the fraudulent domicile certificate, cannot be borrowed to make it as basis to reject the application under Section 7 read with 25 of the Guardianship and Wards Act. 17. There is another aspect which has to be taken into consideration. The offences of which the appellant is accused of are pertaining to the procurement of fraudulent certificate, taken as to be basis for getting the appointment. Such type of offence may be a social offence, but it will not govern the personal relationship or relationship in emotion and sentiments have a play as far as it relates to the affection which a father has for his children. 18. The judgment impugned do not refer any of the condition taken in the application filed by the husband for getting the custody of the minor son and thus, this Court feels that it was incumbent on the Court below to have recorded its findings to the propriety of the application and counter application and with regard to the justification as to whom the child would be safe. Not considering the same and rejecting the application merely because of the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C, is absolutely misnomer and unjustified. 19. If at all it is presumed that the criminal proceedings may have nexus with another proceeding like the one in hand under Guardianship and Wards Act but how it is related and how it will affect the rights of the guardianship was required to be considered by the Court. 20. Although, it was pleaded but not the basis of the judgment that the brother of the husband is also facing proceedings under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act against his wife, and thus, the stand of the respondent that in the home, there is no female member who can take care of the child. 20. Although, it was pleaded but not the basis of the judgment that the brother of the husband is also facing proceedings under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act against his wife, and thus, the stand of the respondent that in the home, there is no female member who can take care of the child. Since, the Court has not considered the issue from that view point, this Court is refraining from making any observation on that issue, which is to be decided afresh by the Court after considering the rival contentions. 21. Even otherwise also the judgment lays down that the findings of the criminal proceedings are only for the purpose to settle a criminal offences which an accused has been leveled with. The findings arrived in the criminal proceedings cannot be borrowed for the purpose of the civil proceedings and, in particular, the proceedings in the nature of Guardianship and Wards Act. 22. Thus, the reason for rejecting the application is absolutely untenable and the appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence the impugned order is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Family Court to decide the application afresh after taking into consideration one and only factor as to what would serve the best purpose for the welfare of the child. The application would be decided within four months from the date of receipt of the order.