A person who is interested in the welfare of a minor child can be impleaded as a party in guardianship proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, even if they are not related to the child.

GOPAL RAO EKBOTE, J.

( 1 ) THESE are the revision petitions filed against the order of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad made in I. A. Nos. 18888 to 1891 of 1970 in O. P. Nos. 291, 292, 297 and 298 of 1970 on 10/11/1970.

( 2 ) THE arterial facts are that the respondents herein made applications to the Chief Judge. City Civil Court, Hyderabad under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter called the Act) for appointing them as guardians alleging inter alia that after the custody of the children is given to them as guardians, they intended o adopt the children and act as foster parents.

( 3 ) AFTER the petitions were filed, it was published in The Hindu, calling for objections, if any, from persons interested in the children.

( 4 ) THE petitioner who is the Secretary Arya Prathinidhi Sabha. Hyderabad filed applications I. A. Nos. 888 to 1891 of 1970 requesting the Court to implead him as party to the petitions. He alleged that the Arya Prathinidhi Sabha runs regular homes for deserted children or for children who are either orphans or not claimed by parents. The Sabha bring them up in the regular Indian traditions. The petitioner also offered to take care of the children and bring them up and he showed his willingness to produce the children before the Court as and when required. He also opposed the appointment of the respondents as the guardians mainly on the ground that they are foreigners and are not amenable to the control of the court.

( 5 ) NO counter was filed by the respondents in spite of notices served upon them. Their advocate, however opposed the petition during the course of the arguments.

( 6 ) THE learned Chief Judge rejected the petition wholly on the ground that the petitioner is not a necessary and proper party to be impleaded as he has no locus standi. It is this view that is now assailed in these revision petitions.

( 7 ) NOW, it is not in doubt that the proceedings before the District Court as defined in the Act are governed by the provisions of the Code of civil Procedure subject, of course, to the provisions specifically made by the Act or the rules made thereunder. Admittedly, there is no provision in the Act or the rules made thereunder on the lines of Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P. C. under which provision necessary or proper parties could be impleaded in the proceedings. In the absence of any such provision. it can hardly be doubted that the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10, would be attracted to the proceedings under the Act. That this is so is seen from the following decisions: G. Satyanarayana v. Satyanarayana Murthy, (1967-2 Andh WR 479); Radha Bai v. B. Chinnayya, (AIR 1968 Andh Pra 353) and T. Venkatesan v. a. Krishnaiah. (1966-2 Andh WR 245 ).

( 8 ) LET us then examine whether the petitioner is a necessary or proper party to the proceedings under the Act. It was a common ground that the petitioner is not unnecessary party to the proceedings. The arguments centered round the question as to whether he can be said to be a proper party.

( 9 ) NOW under Section 8 of the Act, an order shall not be made under section 7 except on the applications of the person desirous of being or claiming to be the guardian of the minor. Admittedly, the respondents have filed their main applications for the appointment as guardians on the basis of this provision. The applications were filed under Section 10 of the Act. Section 11 prescribes the procedure on admission of application. It enjoins that if the court is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding on the application, it shall fix a day for the haring thereof and cause notice of the application and of the date fixed for the hearing. Such a notice shall be served in the manner directed in the Code of Civil Procedure, firstly, on the parents of the minors, secondly on the person, the custody or possession of the person of the minor, thirdly on the person proposed in the application to be appointed or declared guardian unless that perso

Click Here to Read the rest of this document