SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1964 Supreme(Pat) 69

PATNA HIGH COURT
R.K.Choudhary, J.
Balram Mandal
Versus
Rajani Mandalain
Appeal From Original Order No. 314 of 1963 ;
Decided On : APRIL 14, 1964

The welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in appointing a guardian, and the court must consider all relevant factors, including the age of the minor, the character and capacity of the proposed guardian, and the nearness of kin to the minor.

Headnote:

GUARDIANSHIP - APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN - WELFARE OF MINOR - MOTHER APPOINTED AS GUARDIAN OF PERSON OF MINOR SON - HINDU MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP ACT, 1956, SECTIONS 6, 13 - GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, 1890, SECTIONS 7, 17.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, the father of a minor boy, challenged the order of the District Judge appointing the boy's mother as the guardian of his person. The mother had filed an application for guardianship, alleging that the boy was not being treated favorably by his stepmother, who was the only female member in the father's house. The father objected, claiming that he was the fit person to act as the guardian.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the welfare of the minor was the paramount consideration in appointing a guardian. It found that the mother was a fit person to be appointed as the guardian, as she was more likely to provide a nurturing and supportive environment for the boy than the stepmother. The court also noted that the boy was of tender age and that it was in his best interests to be in the custody of his mother.

Issues: 1. Whether the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in appointing a guardian? 2. Whether the mother is a fit person to be appointed as the guardian of the minor son? 3. Whether the age of the minor is a relevant factor in determining who should be appointed as guardian?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in appointing a guardian, as provided under Sections 7 and 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. 2. The court found that the mother was a fit person to be appointed as the guardian of the minor son, as she was more likely to provide a nurturing and supportive environment for the boy than the stepmother. 3. The court held that the age of the minor was a relevant factor in determining who should be appointed as guardian, as a younger child may require more care and attention than an older child.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the District Judge appointing the mother as the guardian of the minor son.

Judgment

R.K.Choudhary, J.

1. This appeal under Sec. 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act is directed against an order ot the District Judge of the Santhai Parganas appointing the mother of a boy to act as the guardian of his person.

2. It appaars that the appellant Balram Mandal had no issue by his first wife, Boma Mandalain, He, therefore, took a second wife, namely, the respondent Rajani Mandalain, from whom fie got several daughters and a son, Jagarnath Mandal. It further appears that for differences between the husband and the second wife, the second wife, Rajani, has to leave her husbands house along with her daughters and to live with her father at her fathers house. The son, however, was living with the father in whose house the only female member was his first wife, namely, the step-mother of the boy. According to the mother of the boy, he was not being treated favourably by his step-mother, and, for the welfare of the boy, she thought it necessary to be appointed as the guardian of his person. She, therefore, made an application before the District Judge for being appointed as the guardian of this person. An objection was raised on behalf of the "father that he was the fit person to act as the guardian of the person of the boy and the mother should not be appointed as guardian in consideration of the welfare of the boy. Both parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims. The learned District Judge agreed with the contention of the respondent and appointed he as the guardian of the person of the boy, Jagarnath. The father, Balram, has, therefore, presented this appeal.

3. The principle of law that is applicable in appointing a guardian of a minor has been rightly pointed out by the learned District Judge to be that the interest and welfare of a minor is the first and main consideration for such an appointment. Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act clearly states that the Court, in order to appoint or declare a person, to be the guardian of a minor, must be satisfied that it is for the welfare of the minor Sub-section (1) of Sec.17 of the said Act states that, in appointing or declaring the guardian of a minor, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be guided bay what, consistently with the law to which the minor is subject, appears in the circumstances to be for the welfare of the minor. Sub-section (2) of that section lays down as to what should be taken into consideration in deciding as to what will be for the welfare of the minor, and in that connection it lays down that the Court shall have regard to the age, sex and religion of the minor, the character and capacity of the proposed guardian and his nearness of kin to the minor. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that, in appointing a guardian, the Court has to look to the welfare of the minor. The evidence adduced in this case, as discussed by the learned District Judge, clearly shows that for the welfare of the minor the mother, and not the fathar, is a person fit to be appointed as the guardian of the person of the minor.

4. On behalf of the applicant, the mother, witnesses have been examined to prove that she was turned out of the house, that the daughters are living with her, that one of the daughters who lived for some time with the? step-mother was badly treated by her and that the stepmother does not fare well with the boy. That evidence has been accepted by the learned District Judge, and nothing has been placed before me from the evidence of those witnesses to show that the conclusion at which the learned Judge arrived was wrong. It is not, therefore, necessary to discuss the evidence of these witnesses. Moreover, if the boy is kept under the guardianship of the father, for all practical purposes, the stepmother will have) full control over the boy; and it is not most natural that the mother, if not otherwise unfit to act as the guardian, will be a much better guardian than the stepmother. The learned District Judge ha




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top