The Appellant married the daughter of respondent no. 1 as per the Islamic rites and customs. Two children were born out of the wedlock. Appellant’s wife died after thirteen years of marriage and within a year he married again. Respondent no. 1 maternal grandfather, respondent nos. 2, 3, and 4 maternal aunt and uncles of the minor children, girl aged 13 years and boy aged 5 years, initiated proceedings u/s 7, 9 and 17 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 for appointment as guardians. They also filed application u/s 12 of the act praying for interim protection of the persons and properties of the minor children and also for an injunction restraining the appellant from interfering or disturbing the custody of the minor children. Family Court passed an interim order restraining the appellant from interfering with the custody of the children with the respondent. Appellant challenged the order. Family Court set aside the said order of injunction. High Court set aside the said order and passed certain directions. Hence the present appeal was made by the appellant in this Court. Sections 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 empowers court to “make such order for the temporary custody and protection of the person of property of the minor as it thinks proper.” In matters of custody, welfare of the children is the sole and single yardstick by which the Court shall assess the comparative welfare of the children is the sole and single yardstick by which the Court shall assess the comparative merit of the parties contesting for custody. Therefore, while deciding the question of interim custody, the court must be guided by the welfare of the children since it empowers the Court to make any order as it deems proper. With regard to guardianship, the prima facie case lies in favour of the father as u/s. 19 of the Act, unless the father is not fit to be a guardian, the Court has no jurisdiction to appoint another guardian. Respondents, despite the voluminous allegations leveled against the appellant have not been able to prove that he is not fit to take care of the minor children, nor has the Family Court or the High Court found him so. However, the question of custody is different from the question of guardianship. The father can continue to be the natural guardian of the children. Submit