1. This appeal is filed under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of Mohan, J. holding that the petition filed by the appellant-father praying for declaration that he is the guardian of the persons of the minors and for he restoration of the custody of the minors to the father is not maintainable.
2. The petition is continuation of a long standing and bitter litigation between the father and the mother of the minor children. A suit O.M.S. No. 12 of 1962 was filed for Judicial separation Judicial separation was granted and certain directions were given regarding the custody of the minor children. The father filed O.P. No. 270 of 1970 for the custody of the minor children. There were three children out of the marriage, and custody of two minor children was given to the mother. The father preferred an appeal and the wife a memorandum of objections against the judgment in so far as it was against them, the father and the mother claiming custody of the three children. A Division Bench of this Court by its judgment reported in Jacob A. Chakramakkal v. Rosy J. Chakramakkal (1972) 2 M.L.J. 520 held that the father is the proper person to be the guardian and entrusted the custody of the children to him. The mother took the matter to the Supreme Court in Rosy Jacob v. Jacob (1973) 1 S.C.C. 840; (1974) 2 M.L.J. (S.C.) 34, restored the order of the learned single Judge directing the custody of the two minor children to the mother. While disposing of the appeal, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court expressed their earnest hope that the two spouses would atleast for the sake of happiness of their own off-spring, if for no other reason, forget the past and turn a new leaf in their family life, so that they can provide to their children a happy domestic home to which their children must be considered to be justly entitled. This hope which had been expressed by several learned Judges during the course of this long and bitter litigation has not yet been realised la fact, an appeal to the same effect by us during the hearing of the appeal would not help the parties to bury the hatchet.
3. After the Supreme Court rendered its decision, the present petition, O.P. No. 103 of 1974 was filed by the father. The petition purports to be one under Ss. 7, 8, 10,17, 19 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (Central Act VIII of 1890 hereinafter referred to as the Act). The relevant reliefs prayed for in the petition in paragraph 10 are as follows:
'The petitioner therefore prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to order:
'(a) that the petitioner be declared to be the guardian of the persons of the minors,
(b) that the minors are restored to the custody of the petitioner.'
Mohan, J., who heard the petition framed four points for determination and they are (1) in as much as the Supreme Court had decided the issue of guardianship on the principle of res judicata whether the present petition is barred (2) having regard to the language of S. 48 of the Act, whether the order of the Supreme Court has become final and is not liable to be decided otherwise, (3) having regard to the principle of comity of Judges, whether, the matter cannot be re-agitated, and (4) since under law, the father himself is the guardian, whether an application for declaration under S. 7 of the Act will not he, in other words, is redundant.
4. The learned Judge found that the decision of the Supreme Court barred the present petition on the principle of res judicata. On the second question, he found that the proper construction to be placed on S 48 of the Act is that the civil proceedings are barred, but that does not met that where the Court has not decided the question of guardianship in a prior application, the bar under S. 48 could be invoked. The learned Judge felt it unnecessary to go into the principle of comity of Judges as in his view, the present petition is barred by the earlier Supreme Court judgment. On the fourth point, the learned Judge found that though the father is in law the guardian is the absence of any unfitness that does not mean that he would be dis entitled to file the application in proper cases.
5. In the appeal before us, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant father that the judgment of the Supreme Court would not bar the present petition as the principle of res judicata is not applicable, and the learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand while supporting the view of the learned Judge that the petition was barred by the principle of res judicata, contended that the learned Judge was in error in holding that an application for guardianship under S. 7 of the Act was maintainable by the father. The question as to whether an order under the Act would be fail and as such this petition is not maintainable would depend upon the fact whether reliefs under S. 7 of the Act is barred by the Supreme Court judgment and therefore need not be separately considered. The point as to the principle of comity of Judges was not considered by the learned Judge and was also not pressed before us for decision.
6. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the decision of the Supreme Court bars the present petition on the principle of res judicata The present petition as already referred to was filed under Ss. 7, 8, 10, 17. 19 and 25 of the Act, and the reliefs claimed were for declaration of the appellant-father as the guardian of the person of the minors and for restoration of the minors to the custody of the appellant-father. The relevant Section of the Guardians and Wards Act are 7, 17, 19 and 25. Chapter II comprises S. 5 to S-19 they relate to the appointment and declaration of guardians, S. 7 of the Act reads thus:
'7 (i) Where the Court is satisfied that it is for the welfare of a minor that order should be made,
(a) appointing a guardian of his person or property, or both or
(b) declaring a person to be such a guardian, the Court may make an order accordingly.'
The Court by this section is empowered to appoint a guardian t r to declare a person to be such ft guardian, if it is satisfied that it is for the welfare of a minor. S. 17 runs as follows:
'17. (1) In appointing or declaring the guardian of a minor, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be guided by what, consistently with the law to which the minor is subject-appears in the circumstances to be for the welfare of the minor.
(2) in considering what will be for the welfare of the minor, the Court shall have regard to the age, sex and religion of the minor, to character and capacity of the proposed guardian and his nearness of kin to the minor, the wishes, if any, of a deceased parent, and any existing or previous relations of the proposed guardian with the minor or his property.
(3) If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference, the Court may consider that preference.'
S. 19(b) of the Act runs as follows:
'Nothing in this chapter shall authorise the Court to appoint or declare a guardian of the property of a minor whose property is under the superintendence of a Court of Wards or to appoint and declare a guardian of the person of a minor whose father is living and is not in the opinion of the Court, unfit to be guardian of the person of the minor, or'
This section does not authorise the Court to appoint or declare a guardian of the person of a minor whose father is living and is not in the opinion of the Court, unfit to be guardian of the person of the minor. The requirements of the provisions of Ss. 7, 17, and 19 of the Act will have to be borne in mind by a Court before appointing or declaring a guardian of the person of the miner. Chap. III of the Act deals with the duties, rights and liabilities of guardians. S. 25(1) of the Act runs as follows:
'If a ward leaves or is removed from the custody of a guardian of bit person, the Court, if it is of opinion that it well before the welfare of the wind to return to the custody of guardian, may make an order for his return, and for the purpose of enforcing the order may cause the ward to be arrested and to be delivered in the custody of the guardian.'
This sub-section enables the Court to cause the ward to be arrested and delve no into the custody of the guardian, if the ward I haves or removed from the custody of the guardian of his person, and if the Court is of opinion that it will be for the welfare of the ward to return to the custody of the guardian. Before a petition under S. 25 of the Act could be maintained, the person applying for relief should b the guard: an of the on of the minor who has been reproved. If the petition under S. 25 of the Act proceeded on the ban is that the petitioner wan the guardian and relief as to custody of he minor was denied him, even though he was a guardian, a fresh petition for his being declared as the guardian under S. 7 of the Act and for custody would not be maintainable, for the relief as to custody of the minor would have been considered only on the basis that he was the guardian. Therefore, generally speaking, when custody of the minors had been denied to the father presuming him to be the guardian, a fresh petition by him for declaring him as the guardian and thereafter praying for custody of the minors as a guardian would not be maintainable.
7. Though prima facie the petition is not maintainable, the learned counsel for the appellant-father submitted that certain observations of the Supreme Court will make it clear that the filing of a petition under S. 7 of the Act was kept open in the prior proceedings. In order to appreciate this contention, we will refer to the various passages relied in by either of the parties in the Supreme Court judgment in Rosy Jacob v. Jacob 1973 1 S.C.C. 840; 1974-2 M.L.J. (S.C.) 54. The last sentence in the first paragraph runs as follows:-
'The short question which we are called upon to decide relates to the guardianship of the three children of the parties and the solution of the problem primarily requires consideration of the welfare of the children.'
On behalf of the respondent-mother it was submitted that what was decided by the Supreme Court related to the guardianship of the three minor children and a petition for declaration of the appellant father as the guardian of the minors would not lie now as it was specifically covered in the point that was determined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court quoted the second point that arose for judicial determination before the learned single Judge of the High Court who heard O.P. No. 270 of 1970 as follows:
'What is the proper order to pass as regards the custody of the three children of the marriage in the light of the events that have occurred subsequent to the judgment of the appellate Court and under the Guaidian and Waids Act?
It may be noted that the point as set out here to the custody of the three children. The petition O.P. No. 270 of 1970 was for the custody of the minor children under S 25 of the Guardians and wards Act A contention was raised on behalf of the respondent mother that the Guardians and Wards Act would be inapplicable to cases where orders have been made in matrimonial proceedings and S. 19 of the G guardians and Wards Act cannot govern the custody of children given by a consequent decree under the Indian Divorce Act. In dealing with this punt, this Supreme Court held that the Court under the Divorce Act would be incompetent to make any order under Ss. 41 and 42 with respect to the elder son and the daughter in the present position as they have passed the age contemplated under the Indian Divorce Act. On this ground on behalf of the father it was claimed that he had a right to invok: S 25 of the Act and it was further pleaded that if S. 25 of the Act was not applicable, then the petition O.P No. 270 of 1970 should be treated to be one under S 19 of the Act or under any other competent Section of the Act so that he could get custody of the children denied to him by the mother. The answer to this contention on behalf of the mother, the respondent herein, was that the proper procedure which the father ought to have adopted was to apply under S 7 of the Act and if such a petition had been made, it would have been in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The above passage indicates that while on behalf of the father the Court was requested to treat the petition to be one under S. 7 of the Act, on behalf of the mother it was contended that the petition cannot be treated to be one and S. 7 of the Act. Dealing with this contention the Supreme Court observed that if the Court under the Divorce Act cannot make any order with respect to the custody, of Ajit alias Andrew and Maya alias Mary and it is not open to the Court under the Guardians and Wards Act to appoint or declare guardian of the person of his children under 5.19 during his life time, if the Court does not consider him unfit, then, the only provision to which the father can have resort for his children's custody is S 25. The above sentence would indicate that when the court under the Divorce Act cannot make any order with respect to the custody of the two minors who have passed the age it is not open to the Court under the Guardians and Wards Act to appoint or declare guardian of the person of his children under S. 19 during his life time, the only relief that was available to the father is under S. 25 of the Act. This might imply that a father cannot apply during his life time to be appointed or declared as guardian. If this position is taken as the law declared by the Supreme Court, this Court will be bound by it and a petition by the father for his being appointed or declared guardian should be held to be nor maintainable under the Guardians and Wards Act. But this statement of the Supreme Court, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-father, is not law declared, but was only a passing observation. We will deal with this question when we consider the objection of the learned counsel for the respondent that a petition by the father for appointment or for declaration as a guardian is not maintainable.
8. Dealing with child Mahesh alias Thomas, at the time when the appeal was beard by the Supreme Court, the Court under toe Divorce it was empowered to make suitable orders, relating to his custody, maintenance and education, and therefore the Supreme Court felt somewhat difficult to impute to the Legislature an intention to set up another parallel Court to deal with the question of the custody of a minor which is within the power of a competent Court nadir the Divorce Act. The Supreme Court therefore declined to accede to the plea of the father that his application should be considered to have been preferred for appointing or declaring him as the guardian. The plea that he may be appointed or declared as the guardian is a relief under S. 7 of the Act and if he is appointed as the guardian, he can ask for custody of the minors if he satisfies the other requirements of the Act. Though the Supreme Court declined to treat the application to be and under S. 7 of the Act, it proceeded on the basis that the father was the guardian and considered the question as to whether as a guardian in the circumstances of the case, be would be entitled to the custody. The Supreme Court dealing with the contention that if the father is not unfit to be the guardian of I is minor children, then the question of the welfare does not arise at all, held that such a contention is to state the proposition too broadly and may appear somewhat ms seeding. This passage would indicter that in behalf of the father custody was claimed under S. 19 of the Guardians and Wards Act which provides that the Court is not authorised to appoint or declare a guardian of the person of a minor whose father is living and is not in the opinion of the Court unfit to be a guardian of the person of the minor. On the basis of the section the plea was that being the father and being not unfit to be the guardian of the person of the minors, do other person could be appointed or declared as the guardian and therefore the father is entitled to she custody of the children. As already stated, this plea was negatived by the Supreme Court by saying that the contention that if the father is not fit to be she guardian of the minor children, there, the question of their welfare dose not and at all, is to state the proposition too broadly. Therefore, it is clear that the Supreme Court proceeded on the basis that the appellant father was the guardian and not disquietude to be a guardian, but yet under S. 25 of the Act, he will not be entitled to the custody as it was not in the welfare of the children. Toe Supreme Court observed that the father's fitness cannot override co. aside rations of the welfare of the minor children, and though the father has been presumed by till statute generally to be better fitted to look after the children, the Court in each case has to see primarily to the welfare of the children, in determining the question of their custody in the background of all the relevant faces having a bearing on their health, maintenance and education. The Supreme Court referring to the decisions on the question of right to be appointed or declared as the guardian and thereby granted custody of hit minor children under S 25 read with S. 19 of the Act observed that those decisions to the extent they go against the view expressed by the Court must be held to be wrongly decided. On a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court it is clear that the Court directed the custody of the children to the mother after taking into account the position of the father who is not unfit to be the guardian of the minor children. In the circumstances, the relief asked for in the petition in O.P. No. 103 of 1974 for an order directing the minors to be restored to the custody of the petitioner cannot be ordered, even though the petitioner-father may be declared to be the guardian of the person of the minors.
9. We will now refer to the question, as to whether it open to the appellant-father to seek a declaration that he is the question of the person of the minors, even though he is not entitled for restoration of the custody of the minors. Is the petition, the father has stated that no guardian has so far been appointed by the Court and no application was made with respect to the guardianship of the mitotic and that the present petition was made for a declaration that the appellant-father was the guardian of the person of the minors and for restoration of custody to him. Paragraph 8 of the petition starts by saying that the petition is for declaration and custody made on the grounds mentioned. Thus it will be seen that the relief sought for by the petitioner is to be declared as the guardian though in asking for such a declaration the relief for restoration of the custody of the minors is also included which relief we have already found that the petitioner is not entitled to. The Supreme Court in disposing of the appeal before it was not called upon to consider whether the father is entitled to be declared as the guardian, though in stating the short question for consideration, the Court staged that what it was called upon to decide related to the guardianship of the three children of the parties. The body of the judgment makes it clear that it was dealing only with the custody of the children under S. 25 of the Act even though in deciding the question it took into account the preferential position of the father under the Act. The plea therefore that the issue as to the guardianship has not been decided as such in the earlier proceeding has to be accepted. It has to be held that as this question as to the guardianship has not been adjudicated, the father will be entitled to maintain a petition so far as the first relief, that is, the petition for his being declared as the guardian, is not vanes by the principle of res judicata by the decision of the Supreme Court. In considering this petition, the Court will take into account the several provisions in the Act which it is called upon to take into account before appointing a guardian, particularly Ss. 7, 17 and 19 of the Act. A petition by the father need not always be redundant for it may well be contended that the Court need not make an order declaring a guardian under the Act if it is not for the welfare of the minor. The petition may be opposed on grounds that may be open under the law.
10. It was strongly urged by Mr. K.N. Balasubramaniam, learned counsel for the respondent-mother that the father is not entitled to maintain an application under S. 7 of the Act for his being declared as a guardian under the Act. S. 7 provides that for the welfare of the minor, if the Court is satisfied that the order should be made declaring a person to be such a guardian, the Court may make an order accordingly. On a reading of the section there appears to be no objection to the father being declared as a guardian if the welfare of the minor required it S. 17 requires that in declaring a guardian, the Court shall be guided by what consistently with the law to which the minor is subject, appears in the circumstances to be for the welfare of the minor. This section also does net in any way for the father applying for being declared as the guardian of the minor. S. 19(b) of the Act provides that nothing in Ch. II which relates to appointment and declaration of guardians, shall authorise the Court to appoint or declare a guardian of the person of a minor wt thee father is living and is not, in the opinion of the Court, unfit to be guardian of the person of the minor. This sub-section has given rise to a controversy and the learned counsel for the respondent-mother referred to certain decisions which would construe the section as debarring the father from maintaining a petition for his being delated as a guardian. Before referring to the decisions, we would point out that this point was not taken before the Supreme Court or in any other proceedings. The contention on behalf of the mother who was the appellant before the Supreme Court was thatthe father ought to have applied under S. 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act and the plea of the father was that if the petition under S. 25 was found to be defective, it could be converted into the under S. 7. Though the Supreme Court did permit the father to convert the application to be one under S 7, it hat to be held that an application under S. 7 is not maintainable. The only passage which may be taken as referring to this aspect is the one where the Court has observed that if the Court under the Divorce Act cannot make any order with respect to the custody of Ajit alias Andrew and Maya alias Mary and it is not open to the Court under the Guardians and Wards Act to appoint or declare guardian of the person of his children under S. 19 during his life time, if the Court does not consider him unfit, then the only provision to which the father can have reason for his children's custody is S. 25. From this observation, it was submitted that the Court has ruled that the Court under the Guardians and Wards Act cannot appoint or declare the father as the guardian of the person of the minor under S 19 during his lifetime. This statement of the Supreme Court is hypothetical and cannot be construed as laying down the law that an application under 57 is not open because of S 19. Having found that the Supreme Court has not held that a petition under S 7 by the father is not maintainable, we will proceed to refer to the decisions cited before us.
11. In Satytmarayana v. Naraselyammoa 18 L.W. 173; 73 I.C. 348 a Bench of this Court held that if a third party applies, he shall not be appointed or declared a guardian of the person of a minor whose father is living and is not, unfit, and if the father is the applicant the section has no application. In Raghavaiya v. Lekshmiah 48 M.L.J. 179; 86 I.C. 640 the question as to whether the father can ask for a declaration that be is the guardian was considered by a Bench. Venkatasubba Rao, J., took the view that the law was correctly laid down in Satyanurayuna v. Narasatyamma 18 L.W. 173; 73 I.C. 348 While Jickaon, J., took a different view. Venkatasubba Rao, J., observed, after referring to S. 19 (a) of the Act that the section resonated the preferential right of the husband or the father as the case may be and provided for the safeguarding of such right, and it was not intended to impose a disability upon either of them, but on the contrary, the plain intention of the section is that in the case of a married female no one other than a husband shall be appointed her guardian unless he is unfit to be such and in the case of a minor child none but the father, excepting when it is proved that he is not fit to be its guardian. A decision of the Privy Council in Annie Besant v. Narayanatahi I.L.R. (1915) 38 Mad. 807; 27 M.L.J. 30 was cited before the Beech in support of the proposition that the father cannot maintain a petition for being declaied at a guardian. The observation relied on runs as follows;
'And further no order declaring a guardian should by reason of the 19th section of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 be made during the respondent's life unless in the opinion of the Court be was resurrect to be the guardian, which was clearly not the case.'
The Privy Council was not dealing with the propriety of the order appointing the plaintiff as the guardian. The observation in the circumstances was held by Venkatasubba Rao, J, as obiter and in the absence of any indication in the judgment that their Lordships of the Privy Council gave a considered opinion on the question, the learned Judge was not prepared to hold that they intended to decide finally the meaning of S. 19. Scrutinising the observation of the Prey Council, wt are unable to construe it as laying down that the father cannot maintain a petition for being appointed as a guardian. What it says is that under S. 19 no order declaring a guardian should be made during the respondent's lifetime (father's lifetime) unless in the opinion of the Court he was unfit to be the guardian which was clearly not the case. This in our view would only mean that all that the Privy Council did was to paraphrase S. 19 but did not purport to lay down that the father cannot maintain an application. Jackson, J, who was the other learned Judge in Roghatatya v. Lakshmiah 48 M.L.J. 179; 86 I.C, 640 expressed a contrary view in the following terms;
'Whether the dictum in Besant v. Narayanlah 87 M.L.J, 90; 30 I.L.R. (1915). 38 Mad. 807 is obiter or otherwise I think it expresses the plain meaning of the statute and under S. 19 the Court is not authorised to declare anybody not even the father as guardian of the person of a minor whose lather is living and in the opinion of the Court is not an fit Whether this was the intention of the legislature or whether a contrary intention has been defeated by defective drafting, I am not prepared to say.'
Neither the section (S. 19), nor the passage referred to in the decision of the Privy Council states that the Court is not authorised to declare anybody as guardian not even the father. The construction that not even the father can be appointed is not warranted either under the section or on the wording of the judgment of the Privy Council. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by Vakatasubba Rao, J., and are of the opinion that the father could maintain a petition under S. 7 for his being declared as the guardian.
12. A few decisions rendered subsequently were relied on by the learned counsel for she respondent-mother. In Sivasankera v. Aadhabai (1939) 2 M.J.J. 515: 30 L.W. 520 the question arose as to whether a Hindu father bad a right to the custody of his minor daughter. When the marriage of the minor daughter was about to be settled, the fitter disapproved of the choice and applies under the Guardians and Wards Act praying for an order appointing him as a guardian of the person and property of the minor. He also prayed that the first respondent though be directed to hand over the custody of the minor to him and the first respondent should be restrained by an injunction from giving a way the miner in marriage to the second respondent. The application was heard originally by Gentle, J. who treated it as rue falling under S. 25 if the Act, and on the ground that the appellant bad abandoned the minor dismissed the petition. An appeal was preferred by the father to a Bench of this Court and the Bench dismissed the appeal holding that the father is certainly not a person in wise favour the court pass an order under S. 25 of the Act, and it is abundantly clear what the minor will be in for better custody if se remained with the first respondent. Repelling the contention that under the circumstances the injunction against the manage may be granted, the Court held that such a relief cannot be obtained under any of the provisions of third Act and observed slat if the appellant without to take other proceedings, he was at livery to do so, but having failed in his application under S. 25 of the Act, be was not entitled to any order on the present application. Writ the Court considered was a petition under S. 25 of the Act, and the question as to when be an application by the father far his being appointed as lit guardian court be maintained or not did not arise for disposal in the appeal, but the Bench observed that the appellant tit father is not entitled to apply under the Act for an order appointing him as the guardian of the person or the apply of the minor on the ground that under the Hindu Law, the lather is the lawful guardian of his child and a declaration by the Court cannot increase his powers. For the above observation, Leach, C.J. speaking for the Bench relied on Venkateswaran v. Saradambal I.L.R. (1935) 13 Rang 59 and the fact that the learned advocate did not challenge the correctness of the decision reodeied by him. Pare from the observation being in the nature of an obiter she reason given that as under the Hindu Law the father is the lawful guardian, he is not entitled to apply for his be appointed an the guardian, has no support in law. It may be suit such an application for appointment as a guardian may not be necessary by virtue of his status. But as far as we could see there is nothing in the Ac: disabling the father from racking such an application declassifying to be the guardian under the Guardians and Warts Act. In the circumstances, we do not think that the observation which is in the nature of obiter is building on us.
13. In Abubackar v. Mariyamma (1945) 2 M.L.J. 463; 58 L.W 587 the same learned Judge Leach, C.J.) resistance the view A Muhammadan father applied for an order appointing him the guardian of his children by the respondent. Subsequently be amended the petition and asked for an under of the Court the respondent to return the children in fish custody. The District Judge dismissed the petition. On appeal the bench observed that a Muliammadan father be so the lawful guardian of his minor children does no require an order of the Court to support his right act as their right guardian and in tact an application under the Guardians and Words Act for an error appointing brio guardian does norm le. The petition which the Bench was dealing with was one under S. 25 of the Act and the observation that a pennon under the Guardian and Wards Act by the father for appointing him as the guard it does not for, was not necessary for the disposal of the petition before the Court. In his view, the observation is in the nature of an obiter dictum and therefore not binding on us.
14. In Kunhirama Kurup v. Narayanan Nambiar (1953) 2 M.L.J.670; A.I.R. 1954 Mad. 375 Mack, J. after a consideration of the decisions in Venkateswaran v. Saradambal (1945) 2 M.L.J. 463; 58 L.W 587 Sivasankara v. Raahubai (1945) 2 M.L.J. 463; 58 L.W 587 and Annie Besant v. Narayaniah I.L.R. 38 Mad. 807, held that could not regard the hue of decisions as ruling out under all circumstances an application by a father to be declared the guardian of person and property of his minor child.
15. In Bat Taro
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
v. Mohan Lal Lallubhai (1922) 24 Bom. L.R. 779 it was held that an applicant the by a Hindu father under the Guardians and Ward? Act, for his being declared as a guardian is wot eompetent. In Tej Begum v. Ghulum Rasul (1934) 83 I.C 308 the Court following the decision in Annie Besant v. Narajanaiah 38 Mad 807 expressed the view that the legislature did cot intend that the Act should apply to a father as the provision was superfluous. 16. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in Mt.Siddicunnisav. Nizamudeen A.I.R. 1932 All. 215 was cited by the learned counsel for the respondent-mother. We do rot find any passage in which the Court has ruled cut an application by the father for being appointed as the guardian of the minors under the Guesdibns and Wards Act. What the Court bits stated is that the Section means cot only that in she presence of the husband or the is there to one else should be given preference, when either of them is fit to be appointed the guardian, but on its language it even out is the jurisdiction of the Court altogether and prevents it from appointing even the husband or the father as a guardian when the of them ate not suit fit to be the guardian. This passage is explained later in the judgment by Suiamnam Ag C.J. thus: 'It my opinion the legislature intended that nobody should be appointed or declared the guardian at all when the husband and the father are alive and bet of them are not unfit, without attempting to settle the competition between them which may arise under the personal law'. 17. For the reasons stated, we are unable to agree with the view of the Lahore or the Bombay High Court that an application by the father for his being appointed as guardian of the person of the minor is not maintainable under the Act We are of the view that the observation made in Stvasankara v. Radhabai (1939) 2 M.L.J. 515: A.I.R. 1939 Mad. 611 and Abubacker v. Martyammoi 1945-2 M.L.J. 463 are in the nature of obiter dicta and are not binding on is. We are satisfied on a reading of the relevant provisions of the Act that a petition by the father for declaring him as the guardian of a minor is maintainable and that S. 19 does not debar him from making such a petition. In coming to this conclusion we respectfully agree with the view taken by Venkatsubba Rao, J in Raghaviaya v. Lakshmiah 48 M.L.J. 179 the observations of the Bench in Satyanarayana v. Narayanswami A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 45 and the observations of Mack. J in kunhirtma Kurupy v. Narayanan Mambiar 1958 (2) 2 M.L.J. 670; A.I.R. 1954 Mad. 375 18. In the result, we hold that the petition by the appellant father for his being declared as the guardian of his child, an is maintainable. We also hold that the relief for a dictation that he is the guardian of the minor children is not be affrayed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Rosy Jacob v. Jacob (1973) 1 S.C.C 840; (1974) 2 S.C.J. 128 We also bold the so far as the secured relief paying that the children be restore to the custody of the appellant-father is concerned, it is hatred by the said Cul cairn of the Supreme Court. Bat as observed by the Supreme Court, with the charged conditions and circumstances, including the passage of the, the Court is entitled to vary such orders if such variation is considered to be in the interest of the welfare of the ward We refrain from stating whether any change of conditions or circumstances have been made cut in the original petition. It is for the trial Court to decide the question. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above Tare will be no order as to costs is the appeal.