LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Does the court have a right to appoint a person for guardianship of the minor

RITUPORNA GUPTA ,
  28 September 2020       Share Bookmark

Court :

Brief :
The Court upheld the decision of the District Judge and revision was dismissed stating “That case is distinguishable inasmuch as the parties were Mohammadans and Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 did not apply there.By virtue of Section 2 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the Courts are obliged to read together and harmonies the provisions of Section 19 of the Guardians and Wards Act and of Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, construing them together the rigour of the prohibition contained in Clause (b) of Section 19 of the Guardians and Wards Act must be considered to have been relaxed to a great extent in the interest of the minor's welfare as laid down in Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. The order of the learned District Judge appointing the grandfather (guardian) is not therefore, without jurisdiction.
Citation :
Appellant :Lalta Prasad Respondent :Ganga Sahai Citation :AIR 1973 Raj 93, 1972 WLN 616

Bench:

Justice Narayan

Issue:

Does the court have a right to appoint a person for guardianship of the minor?

Enroll in the Course on: Complete Hindu Laws MasterClass - Click Here

Facts:

  • The appellant filed a revision application seeking custody of two minor boys above the age of five.
  • Before the institution of revision application, the District Judge appointed grandfather as the interim guardian for the minors.
  • It was contended that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to appoint grandfather as the interim guardian of the minors.

Respondent's contentions:

 The respondent supported the decision of the District Judge contending that the father was unfit to be their guardian.

Judgement:

The Court upheld the decision of the District Judge and revision was dismissed stating “That case is distinguishable inasmuch as the parties were Mohammadans and Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 did not apply there.By virtue of Section 2 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the Courts are obliged to read together and harmonies the provisions of Section 19 of the Guardians and Wards Act and of Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, construing them together the rigour of the prohibition contained in Clause (b) of Section 19 of the Guardians and Wards Act must be considered to have been relaxed to a great extent in the interest of the minor's welfare as laid down in Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. The order of the learned District Judge appointing the grandfather (guardian) is not therefore, without jurisdiction.

The revision application is accordingly dismissed. The interim stay order passed by this Court on 10th July, 1970 is vacated. The children will be delivered in the custody of their grandfather pending decision of the guardianship application, as ordered by the learned District Judge.”

-Para 3,4,6 & 7 (Lalta Prasad v. Ganga Sahai)

 
"Loved reading this piece by RITUPORNA GUPTA?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"



Published in Family Law
Views : 385




Comments






Latest Judgments


More »


Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query