JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. J.H. Ricky Lalruatfela, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears for the respondents on call. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 17(1) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 against the impugned order dated 07.12.2020 passed by the Court of Addl. District Judge-I, Aizwal Judicial District, Aizawl in Guardianship Application No. 58/2020. 3. The appellant being the mother of minor son Zaphenath Vanlalremruata, applied for Guardianship Application No. 58/2020, which was objected by the father and parental grand-parents of her minor son. After hearing the case, the Addl. District Judge-I passed the impugned order dated 07.12.2020 which granted guardianship right to the appellant herein till the minor son attains the age of twelve years. Further, the Court has directed the appellant to make Adhaar card for the minor son and also directed to enjoy the social practice of Mizo both in religious and society despite no evidence in those issues. Hence, this appeal. 4. The case of the appellant is that she got married to respondent no. 1 in the year 2018 and after their marriage they lived together as husband and wife and out of their wedlock one child was born, who is now under the custody of the appellant. Since there have been some disputes arose between the parties, the appellant filed the Guardianship Application praying to issue Guardianship Certificate in her favour for her minor son. Though the opposite party raised objection to the said application but the Trial Court after hearing both sides passed the order which reads as follows:- “In view of the submissions made by both the parties and on careful perusal of the submission during the hearing, it is therefore declared that petitioner Lalramnghaki is declared for Guardian of minor child Zaphenath Vanlalremruata till the minor child attains the age of 12 years with the following conditions:- •The petitioner Lalramnghaki shall allow to stay the minor child with opposite party one night at every month as the minor child is the only child and grandchild of the opposite parties. •The petitioner shall make Aadhar Card for the minor, and shall be allowed to enjoy the social practice of Mizo both in religious and society. •The Guardianship right shall cease as soon as the petitioner marries any other person, or when the child attains the age of 12 years, whichever is earlier. •The petitioner shall make Aadhar Card for the minor, and shall be allowed to enjoy the social practice of Mizo both in religious and society. •The Guardianship right shall cease as soon as the petitioner marries any other person, or when the child attains the age of 12 years, whichever is earlier. The respondent/opposite party can file Review Petition to the competent Court.” 5. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said impugned conditional order dated 07.12.2020, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the impugned order dated 07.12.2020 which directed the appellant to make Aadhar card for her minor son and direction to the appellant to allow the minor son to enjoy the social practices of Mizo both in religious and society is quite arbitrary. There is no evidence to show that the appellant denied Aadhar enrollment for the minor child and there is no evidence to show that the appellant refused her minor son for his enjoyment to the social practices of Mizo in both religious and society. Apart from that Aadhar enrollment is not mandatory for Indian Citizen. 7. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following case law:-Justice K.S. Puttaswamy(Retd) Vs. Union of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant also further contended that the order of Addl. District Judge No. I, dated 07.12.2020 which ordered Guardianship right shall cease as soon as the petitioner marries any other person is also quite arbitrary. There is no evidence to show that appellant would be getting married in future. Even if she is getting married, the mere marriage does not mean that she is not fit to hold guardianship of her minor child. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the provision of law regarding minority has been wrongly interpreted in the order dated 07.12.2020 which stated that the Guardianship right of the child of the appellant shall cease when the child attains the age of 12 years but as per provision of law, the issue of guardianship arises till the child attains the age of 18 years and fixing the age of 12 years for holding guardianship of minor child by the appellant is also quite arbitrary and which is liable to be set aside. 10. 10. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent side in spite of notices were properly served to the respondents. 11. Regarding enrolment of Aadhar card for minor son of the appellant, the enrolment in Aadhar is optional to the citizen of India. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Binoy Visman Vs. Union of India reported in (2017) 7 SCC 59 , pointed out that on the one hand, the enrolment under Aadhar card is voluntary, but in so far as income tax assessees are concerned, they have to necessarily enrol themselves under the Aadhar Act and obtain Aadhar number which will be their identification number as that has become the requirement under the Act. 12. By the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) and Another Vs. Union of India, being W.P. (Civil) No. 494 of 2012, which was decided on September, 26, 2018, the law has been well settled that Aadhar is not the only mode of identification of a person nor can it be compulsorily demanded as a proof of identity in all cases. 13. Under such back drop, it can be said that it is not mandatory for the appellant to obtain Aadhar card for her minor son, who is only about 3/4 years old. Hence, this direction is set aside at this stage. 14. On the point of cessation of Guardianship right as soon as the petitioner marries any other person, it can be said that in the event, if the petitioner re-marries to any other person other than the respondent no. 1, other circumstances may arise which may be harmful to the minor. Considering the welfare of the minor son, I do not want to interfere on such condition laid down by the Addl. District Judge No. I, Aizawl on the issue of Guardianship Certificate in favour of the appellant. 15. Regarding age of the minor child as per the order dated 07.12.2020, it is reflected that the Guardianship shall cease as soon as the child attains the age of 12 years. As per the settled position of law, the child attains the age of majority at the age of 18 years. Hence, that part of impugned order dated 07.12.2020 is also set aside. 16. As per the settled position of law, the child attains the age of majority at the age of 18 years. Hence, that part of impugned order dated 07.12.2020 is also set aside. 16. In respect of enjoyment of social practice of Mizo both in religious and society, it appears that the appellant and her child are Mizo by birth. Hence, to follow the Mizo culture including religious faith and practice cannot be stated to be violation of fundamental rights of a person. 17. In view of the aforesaid modifications, this RFA stands disposed of.