IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 564 of 2005 Smt. Tara Devi W/o late Devendra Prasad .. Appellant. Versus Jeet Ram and another .. Respondents. Mr. Arvind Vashist, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. R.C. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents. UDated: 31-7-2008 UHon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 47 of the Guardian & Wards Act, 1890, has been preferred against the order dated 12-3-2004, passed by District Judge, Almora, in Guardians & Wards Act Case No. 7/2001, Jeet Ram Vs. Tika Ram. 2- Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this appeal are that, Jeet Ram (respondent No.1) filed an application before the District Judge, Almora, under the provision of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for his appointment as a guardian of two minor children of deceased Devendra Prasad with respect to his service funds. The applicant Jeet Ram is the grandfather of the children. Devendra Prasad was his son who was Sub Inspector in Police Department and died on 4.12.2000, leaving behind his minor son Rahul Kumar aged 10 years and minor daughter Arti aged about 8 years. The wife of Devendra Prasad has already died at the time of death of Devendra Prasad. The applicant Jeet Ram wanted to appoint him the guardian of the minor children for release of gratuity, encashment, general insurance, G.P.F. and pension etc. Tika Ram, brother of Jeet Ram, was made opposite party in the petition before the District Judge. He did not oppose the petition. When the notice was published in the Newspaper, Smt. Tara Devi applied for her being 2 arrayed as opposite party on the ground that after the death of wife of Devendra Prasad, she has married with Devendra Prasad and thereby claiming herself as step mother of the minors and made a request that she be appointed guardian of the minors. 4- Parties led evidence before the learned District Judge in support of their claim. The learned District Judge after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record, rejected the objections of Smt. Tara Devi and Jeet Ram was appointed as guardian of two minors Rahul Kumar and Km. Arti and also directed that the funds when received, shall be deposited in the joint account of the minors in a reputed bank under the guardianship of the applicant Jeet Ram. 5- Feeling aggrieved, Smt. Tara Devi has preferred this appeal before this Court. 6- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7- Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant Smt. Tara Devi is the step mother of minor children, therefore, she is entitled to custody and guardianship of the children. He also submitted that the respondent No.1 is an aged and old grandfather and he cannot look after the children, therefore, the impugned order is illegal and improper and is liable to be set aside. 8- On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that Smt. Tara Devi is not legally wedded wife of deceased Devendra Prasad, her name has not been disclosed by the deceased in his 3 service record, and the interest of the minor children is not protected at her hand, therefore, the learned District Judge has rightly appointed Jeet Ram, grandfather of the minor children, as their guardian. 9- I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. Admittedly, the name of Smt. Tara Devi do not find place in the service record of deceased Devendra Prasad. The application allegedly moved by late Devendra Prasad for recording her name in his service record, has not been summoned not it has been filed before the learned District Judge. Further the in proceeding in dispute this fact cannot be decided as to whether Smt. Tara Devi was a legally wedded second wife of Devendra Prasad or not and the interest of the minor children cannot be safe at her hands. In these proceedings under the Guardian and Wards Act, the welfare of the minor children is to be seen and who is the best guardian to protect the interest of minors. Admittedly, both the minors are living with their grandfather happily. Therefore, the welfare of the minor children is protected at the hands of their grandfather. 10- In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge. The appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed. 11- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The order dated 12-3-2004, is hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 4 5