IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.C. Gupte, J.
Ashu Khurana Dutt - Appellant
Versus
Aneesha Ashu Dutt - Respondent
Guardianship Petition No. 16 of 2018; Interim Application (L) No. 5266 of 2021; Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2018
Decided On : 01-04-2021
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act - Jurisdiction - Sections 6, 11 - Family Courts Act, 1956 - Section 7, 8 - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Section 7, 8 - Romila Jaidev Shroff vs Jaidev Rajnikant Shroff,2003 3 MhLJ 468 (FB) - Girish J. Bobade vs. Ajay Thakur, (2006) 2 MhLJ 702
Fact of the Case:
The guardianship petition sought appointment of the Petitioner as the guardian of the minors and relief concerning the property of the minors. The court found that the main prayer for appointment of guardian of the person of the minors was not maintainable before the court, and the other substantive prayers for declaration about the property of a minor and recovery of that property could not lie independently of any claim for being appointed as a guardian.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the guardianship petition, stating that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as framed, and clarified that it had only considered the aspect of jurisdiction and not the merits of the application.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the court to entertain the guardianship petition and the maintainability of the substantive prayers for declaration about the property of a minor and recovery of that property independently of any claim for being appointed as a guardian.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the main prayer for appointment of guardian of the person of the minors was not maintainable before the court, and the other substantive prayers for declaration about the property of a minor and recovery of that property could not lie independently of any claim for being appointed as a guardian. It also emphasized that such applications should be made in accordance with the provisions of the Family Courts Act and the Guardians and Wards Act.
Final Decision: The guardianship petition was dismissed, and the miscellaneous application and the interim application taken out therein were disposed of.
JUDGMENT
S C Gupte, J. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This guardianship petition is filed purportedly under Sections 6 and 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. Prayer clause (a) of the petition seeks appointment of the Petitioner, who is the father of the two minors for whose guardianship the present petition is filed, as the guardian of the person of the minors. Secondly, it seeks reliefs concerning the property of the minors, particularly a declaration that the Respondent mother has unauthorisedly and fraudulently withdrawn or transferred amounts from the bank accounts of the minors for her personal use and benefit [prayer clause (aa)] and an order for recovery of these amounts either by making payment to the Petitioner as their natural guardian or by depositing the same in the bank accounts of the minors [prayer clause (b)].
3. In the first place, the main prayer in the petition, prayer clause (a), which is for appointment of guardian of the person of the minors, is not maintainable before this court. Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Family Courts Act reserves exclusive jurisdiction to entertain a suit or proceeding in relation to guardianship of the person of any minor unto Family Courts by virtue of Clause (f) of the Explanation to Sub-section (1) of Section 7. A Full Bench of this court, in the case of Romila Jaidev Shroff vs Jaidev Rajnikant Shroff,2003 3 MhLJ 468 (FB) , has held so. The Full Bench has observed that in view of the provisions of the Family Courts Act, the court exercising its ordinary original civil jurisdiction relating to matters under the Family Courts Act would lose its jurisdiction to the Family Court, since the former would be a district court and under Section 17 of the Family Courts Act that Act would have an overriding effect. In view of the Full Bench decision of this court, which was referred to, and the proposition of law set out wherein was reiterated, by a learned Single Judge of this court in the case of Girish J. Bobade vs. Ajay Thakur, (2006) 2 MhLJ 702 , the matter does not admit of any controversy. An application for guardianship of the minor's person can lie only before the Family Court.
4. Coming now to the other substantive prayers of the petition, namely, prayer clauses (aa) and (b), it is pertinent to note that an application for a declaration about the property of a minor, which is said to be fraudulently or unauthorisedly transferred, and an order for recovery of that property cannot lie in a guardianship petition independently of any claim for being appointed as a guardian of the person or property of a minor. As noticed above, for appointment as a guardian of the person of the minors, the present petition is not maintainable before this court and, as for guardianship of the minors' property, there is no prayer in the present petition. Any application for appointment of a guardian on the basis of natural guardianship of a minor under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 has to be made in accordance with the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The procedure for appointment of a guardian of either the person or property of a minor is provided under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act. Even for permission to deal with the property of the minor, the natural guardian has to apply to a court under Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, by invoking the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act. This scheme of law indicates that what lies before a court, other than a family court under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, is an application for appointment of guardian of the property of a minor or an application for permission to deal with such property. It is only these applications which are made by means of a guardianship or a miscellaneous petition before this court. It is another matter that in such petition, filed for either of these two reliefs, other ancillary reliefs concerning the pro
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.