Family Courts cannot appoint a guardian for a minor's property, only for the person, necessitating separate applications to the District Court.

ORDER :

R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner in F.No.OP(GWOP).No.927 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli challenging the order of return passed by the said Court.

(A) Factual Matrix:

2.The revision petitioner herein has filed the above said application under Section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 7(1)(g) of the Family Courts Act 1984 to appoint herself as the guardian for the person and property, if any, of the minor son aged about 1 ½ years. This petition has been returned by the Family Court on the ground that as per Section 7(1)(g) of the Family Courts Act, the Family Court has got jurisdiction only with regard to the appointment of guardian of person and has no jurisdiction for appointment of a guardian in respect of the property of a minor. This order is under challenge in the present revision petition.

3.According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, as per Section 7(1)(g) of the Family Courts Act 1984, a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor is maintainable. He had further contended that the word 'in relation to the guardianship' means guardianship of not only of a person, but also the property of the minor. If a restricted interpretation is given to Section 7(1)(g), that would result in filing of application before the two different Courts.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied upon a judgment of the Gauhati High Court reported in AIR (GAU)-2010-046 to contend that an application seeking appointment as guardian of the person as well as the property of a minor would lie to the family Court of that area. He had further pointed out that the word 'person' appearing in Clause (g) must be read to refer to a minor as a person and not necessarily and exclusively the person of a minor. He had further pointed out that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court has held that this would mean guardianship of not only a person of a minor, but also a property of a minor.

5.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has also relied upon Section 7(1)(b) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 to contend that for all purposes, the Family Court exercising jurisdiction under law should be deemed to be a district Court to the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends. Therefore, when the Family Court is deemed to be a District Court, the power exercisable by the District Court under Sections 7 and 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 can be exercised by the Family Court under Section 7(1)(g) of the Family Courts Act.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that if the power of the Family Court is restricted to the guardianship of a person alone then that would result in causing hardship to the petitioner by forcing them to file another GWOP before the District Court seeking guardianship of the property. Whenever hardship is felt, the Court has to interfere and interpret the law in such a manner that hardship is erased and there is no necessity for the litigant to approach two different Courts with regard to the appointment of a guardianship for person and for property. The learned counsel also relied upon decisions of various Courts in support of his contention.

7.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material records.

(B) Discussion:

8.The law relating to the guardianship is governed by Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Section 7 of the said Act confers power upon the Court for appointment of guardian of his person or property for the welfare of a minor. Section 9