[2010(7) ADJ 286]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : RAKESH TIWARI, J.
Smt. VINOD KUMARI ….Appellant
Versus
Smt. DRAUPATI DEVI ….Respondent
(First Appeal From Order No. 1811 of 2010, decided on 7th July, 2010)
Result; Appeal Dismissed.
Cases cited :
AIR 1960 Punj 304 (Para 9); AIR 1999 SC 1149 (Para 20).
Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This First Appeal From Order has been filed by appellant Smt. Vinod Kumari wife of late Jitendra Pal Singh resident of village Madara,Pargana and Tehsil Kol District Aligarh against the judgment and order dated 14.4.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3 Aligarh in Misc. Case No. 58 of 2004, Smt. Draupati Devi v. Smt. Vinod Kumari. The aforesaid Misc. Case was allowed by the Court below appointing Smt. Draupati Devi wife of late Chandrapal Singh, the grand-mother of the two minor sons of late Jitendra Pal Singh namely, Madhupendra Pal Singh and Ankit Kumar as guardian on the application made by her under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3. Jitendra Pal Singh was father of Madhupendra Pal Singh and Ankit Kumar. He had earlier married with Smt. Chokhi from whom Madhupendra Pal Singh was born. After the death of her first wife Smt. Chokhi some where in the year 1994, Ankit Kumar was born out of the wedlock of Smt. Vinod Kumari with whom Jitendra Pal Singh performed second marriage.
4. It appears from the record that before his death Jitendra Pal Singh the father of the aforesaid two minor children being heart patient had executed an unregistered will on 13.5.1999 through public Notary with regard to his all moveable and immoveable properties in favour of both minor sons. By the aforesaid unregistered will Jitendra Pal Singh had appointed his mother Smt. Draupati Devi, opposite party as guardian of his aforesaid two minor sons. After the death of Jitendra Pal Singh an application under Section 8 of the Hindi Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 was moved by Smt. Draupati his mother and the grand mother of the minor children that she may be appointed as guardian to look after the minors and also their property through will dated 13.5.1999 as the minors were under her care and custody and Smt. Vinod Kumari appellant is the step mother of Madhupendra Pal Singh aged about 12 years. The property was detailed at the foot of the aforesaid application filed by her under Section 8 of the Act.
5. Smt. Vinod Kumari, appellant filed her objection to the application under Section 8 of the Act, inter alia that Madhupendra Pal Singh was her step son and Ankit Kumar the other son (minor) has been born to her from out of wedlock with Jitendra Pal Singh. It was stated that after the death of Jitendra Pal Singh both the minor sons were living under her guardianship and she had been looking after them as well as their property without any interference of the applicant or any other person, the grand mother Smt. Draupati Devi. It was also stated that she is the natural guardian of her natural son Ankit Kumar and therefore, no other person can be appointed as guardian of two sons. The execution of will dated 13.5.1999 was also denied by her stating it to be a forged document prepared by the grand-mother after the death of her son Jitendra Pal Singh. According to her, Jitendra Pal Singh had no right to appoint his mother as guardian of the two minor sons to look after them and their property in preference to herself as she was natural guardian of her minor son Ankit Kumar.
6. The claim for guardianship of the minors as well as their property was contested by her on the ground that Smt. Draupati Devi the applicant had bad intention and she had been harassing her and her minor sons in collusion with the sister’s sons who are also residing in the same village.
7. After recording the statements of Smt. Draupati Devi on 18.4.2009 and Smt. Vinod Kumari on 4.2.2010, the Court below allowed the application of Smt. Draupati Devi, the mother of the two minors under Section 8 of the Act by order dated 14.5.2010.
8. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the impugned order dated 14.5.2010 is against the statutory provisions of Section 8 of the Act and the Court below
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.