1 F.A.No.644/10 UNREPROTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO.644 OF 2010. 1.Jahidabi W/o Sheikh Ibrahim, Age 60 years, Occ.Household, R/o Salegaon, Tq.Kaij, Dist.Beed. 2. Sheikh Papa S/o Sheikh Ibrahim, Age 35 years, Occ.Agricuture, R/o as above. ... Appellants. Versus 1. Sheikh Ajmoddin S/o Sheikh Hussain, Age 70 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Lahuri Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed. 2. Sheikh Sharubi W/o Sheikh Ajmoddin, Age 65 years, Occ.Household, R/o as above. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.G.Dargad, advocate for the appellants. Mr.L.H.Kawale, advocate holding for Mr.K.J.Suryawanshi, advocate for the Respondents. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 15.03.2011. 2 F.A.No.644/10 JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. Admit. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties. 3. The appellants assail the judgment and order passed by the District Judge-1 on an application filed by the present Respondents for appointment of guardian and custody of minor Sk.Mehraj. The District Judge-1 vide the impugned order appointed the present Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as guardian of person and property of minor Sk.Mehraj d/o Sk.Gani. However, the District Judge, rejected the prayer of the present Respondents for giving the custody of the said minor. The present appellants are aggrieved by the part of the order appointing the present Respondents as guardian of the person and property of the minor Sk.Mehraj. 4. The present Respondents-original applicants are paternal grand parents of minor 3 F.A.No.644/10 Sk.Mehraj. Sk.Gani was the son of the present Respondents and his wife Zakerabi was the daughter of the present appellant. Both are dead and are no more. The Respondents contended that they being the paternal grand parents, they are the legal guardians of the person and property of their minor grand daughter Sk.Mehraj as per the Personal Law. The present appellants submitted that Sk.Mehraj is residing with the present appellant No.1 and the appellant No.1 is taking her care and submitted to reject the said application. 5. Mr.S.C.Dargad, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the General Law will take precedence over Personal Law. According to him as per the General Law, the appellants would be the legal guardians as the minor Sk.Mehraj is residing with the appellant No.1 and is being taken care by her. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of "Mohammad Shafi Vs. Shamin Banoo" reported in AIR 1979 Bombay 156. The learned counsel further contended that it is only 4 F.A.No.644/10 to grab the amount received under the Workmen's Compensation Act, in the name of minor, the application was moved. When the minor is actually and physically residing with the appellants and the appellants are taking care of her person then no other person can be appointed as legal guardian except the present appellants. 6. Mr.Kawale, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that vide the impugned order the custody of the minor Sk.Mehraj is allowed to be retained by the present appellants but taking into account the Personal Law applicable to the Mohammedans, the Respondents are rightly appointed as legal guardians and for the said purpose relied on Section 105 of the Principles of Mohammedan Law by Verma, saying that in absence of the father, father's father is a legal guardian. 7. I have heard the learned counsels at length. The concept that the General Law would prevail over the Personal Law would arise if the provisions of the Personal Law are inconsistent 5 F.A.No.644/10 with the provisions of the General Law. In the present case said question does not arise. In view of the fact that the Guardians and Wards Act, does not deal with the concept of legal guardian in the case of persons governed by the Mohammedan Law. In such circumstances, the parties will be strictly governed by the Personal Law. According Mohammedan Law, in absence of the parents, the father's father would be the legal guardian. In light of the same, no error is committed by the District Judge, while passing the impugned order. At the same time, the custody is allowed to be retained by the present appellants. 8. In that light of the matter, no interference is called for. However, the amount which is received in the proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, in the name of the minor shall be kept in the name of the minor till she attains majority. The Respondents would not be in a position to utilise the said amount nor any of the parties would be entitled to deal with any property of the minor immovable or movable 6 F.A.No.644/10 without permission of the competent Court. 9. The First Appeal is disposed of with above directions. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/fa64410