Skip to content


Lalta Prasad Vs. Ganga Sahai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily;Civil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 264 of 1972
Judge
Reported inAIR1973Raj93; 1972()WLN616
ActsGuardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Sections 19; Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Sections 2 and 13
AppellantLalta Prasad
RespondentGanga Sahai
Appellant Advocate P.C. Bhandari, Adv.
Respondent Advocate N.M. Kasliwal, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Cases ReferredVegesila Venkata Narasaiah v. Chintalapati Peddi Raju
Excerpt:
guardians & wards act - sections 12 & 19--hindu minority & guardianship act--section 13 grand father appointed as interim guardian--held, order is not without jurisdiction.;the order of the learned district judge appointing the grand father is not therefore, without jurisdiction. - .....that case is distinguishable inasmuch as the parties were mohammadans and section 13 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 did not apply there.4. by virtue of section 2 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, the courts are obliged to read together and harmonies the provisions of section 19 of the guardians and wards act and of section 13 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, construing them together the rigour of the prohibition contained in clause (b) of section 19 of the guardians and wards act must be considered to have been relaxed to a great extent in the interest of the minor's welfare as laid down in section 13 of the hindu minority and guardianship act.5. this view was taken in the following decisions:--jot ram v. taru ram, ilr (1969) 19 rai 989;.....
Judgment:

Jagat Narayan, C.J.

1. This is a 'revision application by the father of two minor boys above the age of five years against an order of the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, appointing their grandfather as their interim guardian under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The parties are Hindus and there is no finding of the learned District Judge that the father is unfit to be their guardian. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to appoint the grandfather as interim guardian in view of Section 19(b) of the Act. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Rafiq v. Smt. Bashiran, 1963 Rai LW 229 = (AIR 1963 Raj 239).

3. That case is distinguishable inasmuch as the parties were Mohammadans and Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 did not apply there.

4. By virtue of Section 2 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the Courts are obliged to read together and harmonies the provisions of Section 19 of the Guardians and Wards Act and of Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, construing them together the rigour of the prohibition contained in Clause (b) of Section 19 of the Guardians and Wards Act must be considered to have been relaxed to a great extent in the interest of the minor's welfare as laid down in Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.

5. This view was taken in the following decisions:--

Jot Ram v. Taru Ram, ILR (1969) 19 Rai 989; Rattan Amolsingh v. Smt. Kamaljit Kaur, AIR 1961 Puni 51; Sunil Kumar Chowdhary v. Sm. Satirani Chowdhary, AIR 1971 Cal 573; Vegesila Venkata Narasaiah v. Chintalapati Peddi Raju, AIR 1971 Andh Pra 134.

6. The order of the learned District Judge appointing the grandfather (guardian) is not therefore, without jurisdiction.

7. The revision application is accordingly dismissed. The interim stay order passed by this Court on 10th July, 1970 is vacated. The children will be delivered in the custody of their grandfather pending decision of the guardianship application, as ordered by the learned District Judge.

8. Costs on parties.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //