Under the said Act, it is the welfare of the minor that has been granted prime importance. It is the duty of the Court while exercising powers thereunder to be satisfied that any order passed by it is for the welfare of the minor.
In Gayatri Bajaj Vs. Jiten Bhalla, (2012) 12 SCC 478, the Supreme Court in paragraph 7 observed thus:
"7. In a matter relating to the custody of children the first and the paramount consideration is the welfare and interest of the child and not the rights of the parents under a statute. Even the statutes, namely, the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 make it wp4897.14.odt 7/10 clear that the welfare of the child is a predominant consideration. In a matter of this nature, particularly, when the father and mother are fighting their case without reference to the welfare of the child, a heavy duty is cast upon the court to exercise its discretion judiciously bearing in mind the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration."
Under Section 12(1) of the said Act, the Court is empowered to make an interlocutory order so as to protect the person or property of the minor as it thinks fit. While considering an application for appointment of guardian, if it is found at an interlocutory stage that the welfare of the minor requires an amount be made available for being paid to the minor with a view to protect the person of the minor and his/her interests, such power would be available with the Court. Provisions of Section 12(1) of the said Act will have to be construed in a manner that would protect the person of the minor and if for such purpose grant of interim maintenance is warranted, the Court would be empowered in that regard. The Allahabad High Court in Khurshid Grover (supra) has rightly observed that provisions of Section 12(1) of the said Act are of wide amplitude and no restrictive meaning should be given to said provisions. The welfare of the minor being the paramount consideration, the power to grant interim maintenance will have to be read in aforesaid provisions. Moreover, during pendency of proceedings when it is brought to the notice of the Court that the welfare of the minor requires to be taken care of by directing one party to pay an amount of interim maintenance, such power can surely be exercised in the facts of the case.
Bombay High Court
Sreenivasagopalan ... vs Meenakshi Tripurari on 31 July, 2015
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
Citation; 2015(6) MHLJ281
