K. N. Misra, J. - (1.) BOTH the above appeals are directed against the same judgment and order dated 13-12-1983 passed by the Additional District Judge, Barabanki in Misc. Appeal No. 26 of 1981 by which Smt. Sooka mother of the minor Ram Saran son of Vishram has been appointed as guardian of her minor son and both Smt. Sooka and Ram Ratan son of Bhikha have been jointly appointed as guardian of the property of the said minor with a condition that they shall not have any right to dispose of the minor's property either by sale or compromise or otherwise in any suit in favour of any person. Aggrieved by this order Smt. Sooka filed F.A.F.O. No. 24 of 1984 and Ram Ratan has filed F.A.F.O. No. 43 of 1984. In her appeal Smt. Sooka had prayed that she be appointed sole guardian of the minor's property as well which consists of one house and agricultural plot measuring 2 bighas 19 biswansis situate in village Khahrenia, Pargana Kursi, Tehsil and District Barabanki. Ram Ratan in his appeal has prayed that he be appointed as sole guardian of the persons and property of the minor.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order very carefully. It has been urged on behalf of appellant Ram Ratan that Smt. Sooka after death of her husband Vishram had remarried with Sheo Ram resident of village Khahrenia. It was, thus, urged that since Smt. Sooka had remarried, and, as such, she cannot be appointed as guardian of the minor son born from the wedlock of her first husband Vishram. I do not find any merit in this contention. In the matters regarding appointment of guardian of persons and property of the minor the welfare of the child is of prime importance. At the time when the question of appointment of guardian of the minor cropped up, he was aged 7 years. It has been asserted on behalf of Smt. Sooka that upon death of her husband Vishram the appellant Ram Ratan, who is grand son of the cousin brother of Vishram, had started harassing her and as a result of it there was danger to her life and property and also to the life and property of the minor child. She had, therefore, no option but to leave the village and go to her father's place and ultimately she was left with no option but to marry with Shiv Ram of village Khahrenia. It is not disputed that Smt. Sooka has no issue from the wedlock of her second husband Shiv Ram. In these circumstances looking to the welfare of the child I find that the order appointing Smt. Sooka as guardian of the minor child is perfectly justified. She being the mother is the natural guardian of the minor Ram Saran can very well be appointed as guardian of persons and property of the minor child. The mere fact that the mother has remarried is no disqualification in law to the appointment of the mother as Guardian of the person and property of the minor child. It is fairly well settled that a Hindu widow does not by the mere fact of her marriage lose her right of guardianship. The primary and paramount consideration for the court in making any order for the appointment of guardian would be the welfare of the minor and remarriage would not disentitle the mother to act as natural guardian of the minor nor it would be a disqualification to her appointment as guardian-See Bakshi Ram Ladha Ram v. Mst Shila Devi, AIR 1960 Punjab 304. It was, however, urged that since Smt Sooka has remarried and so the minor will not get any love, affection and protection from her and he will not be comfortable in the company of the mother and her second husband and especially when children may be born to her in future. I do not find any substance in this contention. The question whether the minor child would or would not feel happy and comfortable with his natural mother who has remarried would depend on several factors such as the nature of disposition of the mother, the behaviour of the second husband with the child and the extent of influence which he may be able to exercise requiring the mother to give more care and attention to his children, if any born to her with his union and to ignore the child of her first husband. It is hardly acceptable that the mother would lose all love and affection and would treat the child with cruelty and indifference on bearing a child from second husband. It is always expected that the mother's love and her affection will be equally distributed amongst all her children born from first and second husband. She being not the step-mother of the child cannot think of giving step motherly treatment and to treat the child from her first husband with roughness and cruelty. The second husband may show indifference to the child of her first husband but that is not always true nor on such probability it can be assumed that the child will not be properly looked after by the mother. Thus, unless there is evidence to suggest that the second husband is treating the child of her first husband with cruelty and that she is also treating him likewise under the pressure of husband or her own accord it cannot be said that the child's welfare will be in jeopardy merely on remarriage of the mother and possibility of bearing a child in future with the second husband. In the instant case there is no evidence to the effect that the child is being treated with cruelty and indifference by the mother and her second husband.
(3.) IT has been stated in the affidavit filed by her dated April 4, 1986 that the minor at present is aged about 10 years and is studying in class III in Primary Pathshala. She has further stated that she is looking after the welfare of the minor child with her meagre income of Rs. 5/- per day which she is getting by doing manual labour, domestic work and cutting fodder. IT has further been alleged that she is looking after the minor child with all due care, love and affection, and, as such I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Barabanki, appointing Smt. Sooka guardian of the person of the minor Ram Saran son of Vishram. So far as the question of appointment of guardian of the property of the minor is concerned, I find that the learned I Additional District Judge has fell in error in appointing two persons as guardian of a very little property of the minor which consists of one house and agricultural plot measuring 2 bighas 19 biswansis. In Munawwar Khan v. Tasalli Khan, AIR 1930 Alld. 225 (1) it has been observed :- "Where property is not large and the Court has appointed separate guardians of persons of the minors, and the appointment of as many guardians of property as that of persons would lead to waste, property may be left in the hands of one of such guardians.;