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

1992 Supreme(Ori) 242

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.C. Mohapatra, J.
ANITA DASH - APPELLANT
Versus
DR. DEVI PRASAD ACHARYA - RESPONDENT
C.R. No. 186 of 1992
Decided On : 26-06-1992

Advocates Appeared:
B.H. Mohanty and R.K. Nayak, for the Appellant; Bijan Ray and C. Choudhury, for the Respondent

In case of simultaneous proceedings for appointment of guardian and dissolution of marriage, the court dealing with the guardianship proceeding should stay the proceedings and transfer the matrimonial proceeding to its court for consistent and efficient adjudication.

Headnote:

GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT - GUARDIANSHIP - SECTION 7, 14 - HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - SECTION 26 - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT IN CASE OF SIMULTANEOUS PROCEEDINGS FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AND DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE - POWER OF MATRIMONIAL COURT TO PASS ORDERS RELATING TO CUSTODY, MAINTENANCE AND EDUCATION OF MINOR CHILDREN UNDER SECTION 26 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - TRANSFER OF MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDING TO THE COURT DEALING WITH THE GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING FOR CONSISTENT AND EFFICIENT ADJUDICATION.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, the wife, filed a Civil Revision challenging the order of the District Judge rejecting her application to stay the guardianship proceeding initiated by her husband under Section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act. The husband had filed an application for dissolution of marriage in the matrimonial court, and during its pendency, he filed an application for guardianship of their child. The wife contended that the guardianship proceeding should be stayed as the points raised in both proceedings were similar and there was a risk of inconsistent findings.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that although Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with stay of proceedings, does not apply to proceedings under the Guardian and Wards Act, the court should consider the interest of the parties for better adjudication of the questions. It noted that Section 14 of the Guardian and Wards Act provides for stay of proceedings in case of simultaneous proceedings in different courts and that Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act empowers the matrimonial court to pass orders relating to custody, maintenance, and education of minor children.

Issues: 1. Whether Section 14 of the Guardian and Wards Act applies to proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. Whether the matrimonial court has the power to pass orders relating to custody, maintenance, and education of minor children. 3. Whether the guardianship proceeding should be stayed in view of the pending matrimonial proceeding.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 14 of the Guardian and Wards Act applies to proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act when an application for custody, maintenance, or education of a child is pending before the matrimonial court. 2. The matrimonial court has the power to pass orders relating to custody, maintenance, and education of minor children under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 3. The guardianship proceeding should be stayed in view of the pending matrimonial proceeding to avoid inconsistent findings and ensure efficient and consistent adjudication.

Final Decision: The court directed the District Judge to get the matrimonial proceeding transferred from the matrimonial court to his court and give finality to both the proceedings by passing appropriate orders based on the evidence.

JUDGMENT :

S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This is a Civil Revision u/s 48 of the Guardian and Wards Act (for short, 'the Act') read with Section 115 of the CPC (for short, 'the Code').

2. Undisputably, petitioner is the wife and opposite party is her husband. Both are Hindus. They have a child aged about 5 years. Husband filed an application for dissolution of marriage in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, which is the district Court as defined under the Hindu Marriage Act. This proceeding is continuing and it is slated that husband has examined himself as a witness. During the pendency of the matrimonial proceeding husband filed an application u/s 7 of the Act for guardianship of the child. Wife entered appearance in that proceeding and prayed that the proceeding should be stayed since the points on which the guardianship is sought are also the points for dissolution of marriage and there may be inconsistency in findings of both the forums.

3. Learned District Judge has rejected this application on the findings that the proceeding under the Act is not a suit and Section 10 of (be Code is not applicable.

4. This is the grievance of the petitioner in the present Civil Revision.

5. It is not disputed that many of the facts asserted in the application for dissolution of marriage have also been asserted in the application for appointment of guardian which have been controverted by the wife. In view of the controversy, findings on the facts would be necessary to be given to examine whether they are materials either for the purpose of dissolution of marriage or for appointment of guardian. Although Section 10 of the Code in terms would not apply to a proceeding under the Act, Court while considering such question is to keep in mind the interest of the parties for better adjudication of the questions. u/s 14 of the Act clear provision has been made that in case of such proceedings in two forums and it is brought to the notice of one of the forums that such a proceeding is pending in another forum, it would stay the proceeding before itself. If both the forums are Courts subordinate to the High Court, reference is to be made to the High Court to determine as to which of the Court would continue the proceeding with respect to appointment and declaration of a guardian of a minor.

Section 14 of the Act reads as follows :

"14. Simultaneous proceedings in different Courts-

(1) If proceedings for the appointment or declaration of a guardian of a minor are taken in more Courts than one, each of those Courts shall, on being apprised of the proceedings in the other Court or Courts, stay the proceedings before itself.

(2) If the Courts are both or all subordinate to the same High Court, they shall report the case to the High Court, and the High Court shall determine in which of the Courts the proceedings with respect to the appointment or declaration of a guardian of the minor shall be bad.

(3) In any other case in which proceedings are stayed under Subsection (1), the Courts shall report the case to and be guided by such order as they may receive from their respective State Governments."

6. Mr. B.H. Mohanty, learned counsel for petitioner, has brought to my notice provision of Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act where it is provided that the matrimonial Court dealing with the proceeding has been vested with the power to pass such interim orders and made such provision in the decree, as it may deem just and proper, with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of minor children.

7. Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as follows : /

"26. Custody of children-In any proceeding under this Act, the Court may, from time to time, pass such interim orders and make such provisions in the decree as it may deem just and proper with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of minor children, consistently with their wishes, wherever possible, and may, after the decree, upon application by petition for the purpose, make from time to time, al





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