IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF th ON THE 13 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 MISC. APPEAL No. 2895 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

SMT. POOJA DHIMAR W/O LATE SUNIL DHIMAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O VILLAGE KOTMA POLICE STATION AND TEHSIL SOHAGPUR DISTRICT SHAHDOL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI A. USMANI-ADVOCATE )

AND

1. AVINASH DHIMAR S/O NOT MENTION, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR CHILDREN OF LATE SUNIL DHIMAR THROUGH GAURDIAN GRANDMOTHER INDRAVATI DHIMAR WIDOW OF LATE RAJKUMAR DHIMAR AGE 68 R/O VILLAGE KOTMA POLICE STATION AND TEHSIL SOHAGPUR DISTRICT SHAHDOL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. UNNATI DHIMAR(MINOR) D/O LATE SUNIL DHIMAR, AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR THROUGH GUARDIAN GRANDMOTHER INDRAVATI DHIMAR WIDOW OF LATE RAJKUMAR DHIMAR AGE ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O VILLAGE KOTMA, PS AND TEHSIL SOHAGPUR, DISTRICT SHAHDOL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. COLLECTOR, THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. AND OTHERS TO WHOM IT IS RELATED S/O NIL N.A. (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS Signature Not Verified (BY SHRI AMIT KUMAR SHARMA-G.A. )

This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Sheel Nagu passed the following:

ORDER

This miscellaneous appeal has been filed assailing the final order dated 4.4.2022 in MJC No.4/2021 by which the claim of appellant/mother for alienating property standing in the name of her children aged about nine and five years, has been declined by rendering a finding that there is no pressing need shown by appellant/ mother which can satisfy the requirements of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 read with Section 29 of the Guardian and Wards Act.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, mother and perused the record.

3. A bare perusal of application under Section 8 of 1956 Act and the record of trial court reveals that no material or evidence was produced by the appellant in support of the necessity for alienating property of minors.

4. An application under Section 8 and the supportive deposition of appellant/mother reveals omnibus assertion that children are studying in english medium school and thus appellant/mother needs money to persue academic careers of both the children. It is also mentioned in the application that land in question which is entered in the name of both children is subjected to encroachment whereas the said averment is not supportive by her deposition or material.

5. One of the objects behind the provision enabling a natural guardian to alienate property of minor, is to ensure that alienation is backed by compelling reasons and for achieving the sole object of welfare of the child.

Signature Not Verified Thus, the guardian is obliged to produce cogent evidence in support of compelling need for alienating property standing in the name of minor. The omnibus cause raised by the appellant/mother falls desperately short of this requirement.

6. However, without commenting upon merits of the matter, only to ensure that interest of minor is not jeopardized, this Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter to the trial court to afford opportunity to appellant/mother to produce cogent evidence to satisfy pressing need to alienate property of minors.

7. In view of above discussion, this Court allows the present appeal with the following directions:

(i) The impugned order dated 4.4.2022 passed in MJC No.4/2021 stands set aside.

(ii) The learned trial judge is requested to afford opportunity to appellant to produce cogent evidence to establish pressing need for alienating the property of minor and thereafter conduct and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible but in accordance with law.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(SHEEL NAGU) (VINAY SARAF)

JUDGE JUDGE P/-

Signature Not Verified