JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for the sole respondent. 2. The appellant by way of this second appeal has prayed for setting aside the order dated 08.05.2015, passed by the Court of the Civil Judge, Aizawl in Guardianship Certificate Application No. 1032/2015 and the order dated 07.12.2015, dismissing FAO No. 3/2015. 3. The appellant’s grievance in brief is that the appellant is the mother of the minor L. Lalrinnunpuia. The appellant’s husband L. Zakungliana expired on 19.01.2015. Thereafter, on the application made by the respondent, who is the grandfather of L. Lalrinnunpuia, the Trial Court had granted guardianship of the child to the respondent without issuance of any notice to the appellant and without taking any evidence. 4. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the prayer for guardianship made by the respondent in respect of the appellant’s son is only for the purpose of receiving family pension. He also submits that the Trial Court could not have granted guardianship of the child to the grandfather as the biological mother was still alive. 5. Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant and the respondent’s son, L. Zakungliana married on 19.01.2012. L. Lalrinnunpuia was thereafter born on 26.11.2013. L. Zakungliana expired on 19.01.2015. However, 1 (one) year prior to the death of L. Zakungliana, the appellant had left and separated from L. Zakungliana. He submits that as per para 38 of the ‘Pawi-Lakher Hnamdan’ (Customary Law), if the wife leaves the husband’s house and does not come back during his lifetime, it should be treated as ‘Sumchhuah’ (divorce by wife). He submits that the appellant came back to the respondent’s house only to attend the funeral service of L. Zakungliana and remained in the house till 10.08.2015. He also submits that the appellant is having custody of the child in question till date. The respondent’s counsel also submits that the guardianship application was made by the respondent and allowed by the Trial Court, as the appellant had given a No-Objection Certificate. 6. Mr. He also submits that the appellant is having custody of the child in question till date. The respondent’s counsel also submits that the guardianship application was made by the respondent and allowed by the Trial Court, as the appellant had given a No-Objection Certificate. 6. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel for the appellant, at this stage submits, that there was no divorce between the appellant and the respondent and that the appellant continues to be the wife of her deceased husband L. Zakungliana. He also submits that the appellant did not give her consent for the guardianship of her son to be given to the respondent. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 8. The records show that the respondent had filed an application for grant of Guardianship Certificate in respect of his grandson, L. Lalrinnunpuia on 05.05.2015, so that the grandson could continue to receive his father’s pension. 3 (three) days later, the Trial Court passed an order dated 08.05.2015, granting Guardianship Certificate to the respondent without issuing any notice to the appellant (mother). As no notice was issued to the appellant by the Trial Court before passing the impugned order, the appellant filed FAO No. 3/2015 in the Court of Addl. District Judge-I, Aizawl, challenging the order dated 08.05.2015, passed in Guardianship Certificate Application No. 1032/2015. The reasons given by the First Appellate Court for dismissing the FAO No. 3/2015, vide order dated 07.12.2015, was that the custody of the child with the respondent would be good for the child’s welfare. 9. On perusing the records further, I find that no issues had been framed either by the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court. Further, no evidence was taken or recorded by the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court. No documents were also exhibited by the Courts below. Further, no notice was issued to the appellant before the order dated 08.05.2015 was passed by the Trial Court, thereby denying the appellant an opportunity to be heard. 10. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court finds that the order dated 08.05.2015, passed by the Trial Court in Guardianship Certificate Application No. 1032/2015 and the order dated 07.12.2015, passed in FAO No. 3/2015 are perverse and accordingly, they are set aside. 10. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court finds that the order dated 08.05.2015, passed by the Trial Court in Guardianship Certificate Application No. 1032/2015 and the order dated 07.12.2015, passed in FAO No. 3/2015 are perverse and accordingly, they are set aside. The case is remanded back to the Court of Civil Judge, Aizawl, to have a de novo trial in Guardianship Certificate Application No. 1032/2015, after giving an opportunity of filing a written statement to the appellant herein. 11. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the Family Pension of the deceased L. Zakungliana is being given by the State Government and being received by the respondent herein. It has to be borne in mind that granting of pension is provided in the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the payment of Family Pension has to be done by following the rules of pension as given in the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Accordingly, no family pension should be given unless the same is allowed as per rules. 12. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court answers the substantial questions of law formulated and holds that the issuance of the Guardianship Certificate to the grandfather/respondent, while the natural mother/appellant is still alive was not proper, regard being had to the fact that no issues were framed or evidence recorded by the Courts below and there was violation of the principles of natural justice. 13. Appeal is accordingly allowed. Send back the LCRs.