Skip to content


Devineni Venkayamma Vs. Ghanta Surayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in163Ind.Cas.88; (1936)71MLJ396
AppellantDevineni Venkayamma
RespondentGhanta Surayya
Excerpt:
- - the learned judge seems to have thought the issue of a warrant for the girl's arrest should depend upon the failure of the parties to settle the giving up of the girl amicably. the court has first to be satisfied that it is for the welfare of the ward before it is to make its order for the wards return to the guardian. it is true that in 1932, the court, presumably satisfied that it was for the minor's welfare, ordered her return to her husband. the mother in 1934, had unsuccessfully tried to get the husband removed from the guardianship of the minor's property, and the district judge who heard and dismissed that application absolved the husband of the charges which the mother made against him to support her application......to be made under section 25 of the guardian and wards act. the respondent is the husband of the minor girl. it appears that in 1932 an order was made by the court under this section for the return of this girl to her husband. but no steps were taken to enforce this order until june 1935 when the order--the subject of this revision petition--was made. the order itself is extremely brief and not very easy to understand. it is these terms:no adjustment was possible. it is said for respondent that some more attempts were likely to be made. warrant of arrest will issue against the minor girl, with returnable date 19th july. but issue of warrant will be stayed till 10th july, to see if any amicable adjustment is possible.2. this order is founded upon the affidavit filed by the husband for.....
Judgment:

Cornish, J.

1. This petition is brought by the mother of a minor girl against the order of the District Judge of Guntur purporting to be made under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act. The respondent is the husband of the minor girl. It appears that in 1932 an order was made by the Court under this section for the return of this girl to her husband. But no steps were taken to enforce this order until June 1935 when the order--the subject of this revision petition--was made. The order itself is extremely brief and not very easy to understand. It is these terms:

No adjustment was possible. It is said for Respondent that some more attempts were likely to be made. Warrant of arrest will issue against the minor girl, with returnable date 19th July. But issue of warrant will be stayed till 10th July, to see if any amicable adjustment is possible.

2. This order is founded upon the affidavit filed by the husband for the arrest and delivery of the minor to him. The affidavit sets out the history of the disputes between him and his wife's mother. The immediate cause of his application is apparently to be found in para 6 of the affidavit where he says that he has come to know, that the mother is trying to remove the girl out of British India, and that it was accordingly necessary that the girl be immediately arrested under Section 100 Criminal Procedure Code and handed over to the husband, according to Section 25(2) Guardian and Wards Act it may be observed that Section 100 is only supplementary to the power of arrest given by Section 25(1) of the Guardian and Wards Act and provides the means of effecting an arrest by issue of a search warrant. There is no apparent foundation in this case for the issue of a search warrant. The learned judge seems to have thought the issue of a warrant for the girl's arrest should depend upon the failure of the parties to settle the giving up of the girl amicably. It has been urged by Mr. Raghava Rao, and I think rightly, that the learned Judge has not directed his attention to the conditions required by Section 25(1) to an order of the Court for the arrest and delivery of a ward to his or her guardian. The Court has first to be satisfied that it is for the welfare of the ward before it is to make its order for the wards return to the guardian. It is true that in 1932, the Court, presumably satisfied that it was for the minor's welfare, ordered her return to her husband. But the husband took no step to have that order carried out until 2| years later. The mother in 1934, had unsuccessfully tried to get the husband removed from the guardianship of the minor's property, and the District Judge who heard and dismissed that application absolved the husband of the charges which the mother made against him to support her application. But those observations did not dispose of the question which it was incumbent on the Court to decide in the1 later application made by the husband to compel the return of his wife. The circumstances that the husband had waited 2 1/2 years before choosing to compel the return to him of his wife, itself suggested that the husband was not very anxious to have her back. And on the stale order of 1932, the Court could not assume in 1935, that it was for the welfare of the minor to return to her husband. I think therefore that the order must be set aside. This will not prevent a fresh application being made by the husband, when it will be for the Court to consider whether it is to the minor's welfare to return to her husband. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed, but having regard to the circumstances in which these disputes have arisen, I make no order as to costs.


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