1970 Supreme(All) 140
Allahbad High Court
G.D.SAHGAL
Rasulan - Appellant
Versus
Dilawar - Respondent
Decided On : 11/10/1970
S. Mirza, for Appellant; Ejazul Haq, for Respondents.
The father is the natural guardian of the minor and no appointment is necessary for his guardianship.
Headnote:
GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT - SECTION 19 - APPOINTMENT OF FATHER AS GUARDIAN - FATHER IS NATURAL GUARDIAN - NO APPOINTMENT NECESSARY - APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
The father of a minor filed an application under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act for his appointment as the guardian of the minor's person. The mother of the minor contested the application on the ground that the minor was born in the month of Bhadon and, according to the community's belief, a son born in that month brings destruction to the family. The District Judge allowed the application and appointed the father as the guardian of the minor's person.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the application was not maintainable as the father is the natural guardian of the minor and no appointment is necessary. The court also held that the father was entitled to the custody of the minor as it would be for the welfare of the minor to restore his custody to him.
Issues: 1. Whether an application for the appointment of the father as the guardian of the minor is maintainable under the Guardians and Wards Act? 2. Whether the father is entitled to the custody of the minor?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 19 of the Guardians and Wards Act provides that the court cannot appoint or declare a father of a minor to be the guardian of his person if the father is not unfit to be the guardian. 2. The father is the natural guardian of the minor and no appointment is needed for the purpose. 3. The court can treat an application given under one provision of law as being given under another provision of law if the facts justify that it be so treated.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed. The order appointing the father as the guardian of the minor was vacated and the minor was directed to be handed over to the father.
The application was contested on the ground that the minor was born in the month of Bhadon and in the community to which the parties belong a son born in the month of Bhadon is born under inauspicious stars and he brings destruction to the family. It is on this ground that it was said by the mother that the father would kill the boy if he is given in his custody and he is appointed as his guardian. It may here also be pointed out that the mother with whom the minor was living has been divorced by the father and as such the father claimed it would be in the interest and for the welfare of the minor to appoint the father as the guardian of the person of the minor. The application was accordingly moved by the father for the appointment of the guardian of the person of the minor.
2. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the belief on which the defence is founded, namely, a boy born in the month of Bhadon brings destruction to the family had not been established. The court then went to decide that it would be for the welfare of the minor to appoint the father as the guardian, the age of the minor being nine years, and the ultimate order of the court passed reads as follows :-
"Having regard to the circumstances of the case I am satisfied that it would be for the welfare of the minor that the applicant is given his custody. The application is allowed with costs. The applicant Dilawar is appointed guardian of the person of Usman minor. His custody shall be handed over to the applicant by Smt. Rasulan within fifteen days from today."
3. The first point that has been urged and which in fact is the only point in the case, is that no application was maintainable for the appointment of the father as the guardian of the minor as the father is the natural guardian of the minor and no question of appointment arises in such a case. There is, however, a different provision, namely, 25 relating to the custody of the minor and if the father wanted the custody of the son, the proper procedure to be followed by him should have been to move an application under that provision of the Act. This section provides that if a ward leaves or is removed from the custody of a guardian of his person, the Court, if it is of opinion that it would be for the welfare of the ward to return to the custody of his guardian, may make an order for his return, on an application being moved under the section. But if an application is moved by the father under Section 10 it was not maintainable and should be dismissed. The trial Judge also seems to have realised this difficulty and so he passed a mixed order, namely, the appointment of the father as guardian of the minor and also an order regarding the handing over of the custody of the minor to the father.
4. We have, therefore, to see in the circumstances as to whether the application should have been dismissed.
5. Section 19 of the Guardians and Wards Act in so far as it is relevant provides that nothing in this Chapter shall authorise the court to appoint or declare a guardian of the person of a minor whose father is living and is not, in the opinion of the court unfit to be guardian of the person of the