Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. P. SRIVASTAVA, M. P. SINGH
JAGDISH CHANDRA GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
VIMLA GUPTA - Respondents
F. A. F. O. 2108 Of 2002
Decided On : 03/25/2003
Guardians and Wards Act - Jurisdiction - Section 9
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an appeal feeling aggrieved by the order appointing the respondent as guardian of a minor. The minor was adopted by the deceased and brought to Kanpur for medical treatment, where the deceased later died.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the District Judge had not considered the relevant provisions and had not applied his mind to the aspects of the case. The matter required fresh consideration by the Court below.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the District Court, Compliance with procedural rules, Welfare of the minor, Custody of the minor
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the importance of considering the welfare of the minor in guardianship cases and the need for proper compliance with procedural rules. It also highlighted the significance of the minor's ordinary residence in determining jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The appeal partly succeeded, and the District Judge was directed to restore the application and dispose of it in accordance with the law, considering the observations made by the Court.
( 1 ) THE appellant, who had not been impleaded as a party - respondent in a proceeding initiated by Dr. Kumari Vimla Gupta - the present respondent, for her being appointed as guardian of the person and property of Km. Sweta Gupta - the minor, has filed this appeal under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 feeling aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, appointing the respondent in this appeal as guardian of the person and property of minor - Km. Sweta Gupta with certain directions.
( 2 ) SINCE the appellant had neither been impleaded in the proceeding giving rise to this appeal nor, as asserted by him, he had any notice of the same, an application seeking grant of leave to file the appeal being Civil Misc. Application No. 91483 of 2002 had been moved by him. The said application had been allowed after hearing the learned counsel for the parties vide the order dated 23-5-2002.
( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel representing the contesting respondent.
( 4 ) PURSUANT to the notice issued by this Court vide the order dated 25-2-2003 Dr. Kumari Vimla Gupta - the respondent has appeared in person along with Km. Sweta Gupta - the minor. The appellant - Jagdish Chandra Gupta is also present in Court as directed.
( 5 ) THE facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in a narrow compass.
( 6 ) KM. (Dr.) Kamla Gupta was the real sister of the present respondent - Dr. Kumari Vimla Gupta. The appellant in this appeal, it is not disputed, is the real brother of Dr. Kumari Vimla Gupta. Both the present appellant as well as the present respondent fall in the category IX of the heirs in class II as indicated in the schedule attached to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Km. (Dr.) Kamla Gupta was a medical practitioner who had set up medical practice in the city of Jabalpur. She had also agricultural properties situate in district - Jabalpur. Km. (Dr.) Kamla Gupta had taken in adoption the minor Km. Sweta born on 2-11-1994 while she was about 6 years of age through a registered adoption deed dated 4-6-2000. At the time of adoption the age of Km. (Dr.) Kamla Gupta was about 74 years. The minor - Km. Sweta Gupta who had been taken in adoption was an orphan and was being brought up in a registered orphanage which is being run in the name and style of Shree Raj Kumari Bai, Bal Niketan (Bal Ashram), near Shastri bridge, Napier Town, Jabalpur. It is also not disputed that Km. (Dr.) Kamla Gupta fell seriously ill. She had a stroke of paralysis and as stated by Dr. Kumari Vimla Gupta, she along with minor had been brought to Kanpur where Dr. Kumari Vimla Gupta, who herself is a medical practitioner, for providing better medical treatment and was being looked after by her. She was brought to Kanpur on 12-11-2001 where she died on 24-11-2001. Km. (Dr.) Kamla Gupta had vast properties in district - Jabalpur which included Nursing Homes and a big residential house besides 5. 8 hectares of agricultural holdings. She had also left behind cash deposits valued at Rs. 50 Lacs.
( 7 ) IT may be noticed that in the application under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, in the clause meant for disclosing the names of the near relations and their residential address, Dr. Kumari Vimla Gupta had mentioned her own name and her residential address. She had not disclosed that the present appellant - the real brother of deceased Km. (Dr.) Kamla Gupta was also a near relative.
( 8 ) RELYING on the affidavit filed by Dr. Kumari Vimla Gupta and noticing the fact that despite the proclamation having been made by beat of drum and publication having been made in Dainik Kanpur Ujala for notice to general public, none had come forward either to contest the petition or to file any objection against it, had allowed the application with certain directions.
( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
