Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: hindu minority and guardianship act 1956 Court: karnataka dharwad Year: 2015 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.069 seconds)

Jul 21 2015 (HC)

Smt. Rama R/O Vittal Tandel, Vs. Smt. Sharadha W/O Nandakumar Tandel,

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

Decided on : Jul-21-2015

..... to the child. 42. the provisions of sections 7, 9, 12, 13, 17 and 25 of the guardians and wards act, 1890, and section 6 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, makes it manifestly clear that the paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor child and not statutory rights of the parents. the problem has to be solved rather with a human touch. in ..... parental house at honavar and the respondent/mother is the natural guardian in respect of her children, who are minors. as per section 6(a) of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 (32 of 1956), the father, and after him, the mother is the natural guardian of the minor children and as on the date of the application filed for custody, the age of the children was ..... to whom the custody should be given.36. the provisions of section 13 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, reads as under: 13. welfare of minor to be paramount consideration. (1) in the appointment or declaration of any person as guardian of a hindu minor by a court, the welfare of the minor shall be the paramount consideration. :46. : (2) no person shall be entitled to the ..... marriage among hindus, if the court is of the opinion that his or her guardianship will not be for the welfare of the minor. 37. while considering the provisions of section 13 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, interpreting section 13, the hon ble supreme court, in the case of gaurav nagpal vs. sumedha nagpal, reported in (2009) 1 scc42 has held as under: .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 2015 (HC)

Rama and Others Vs. Sharadha

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

Decided on : Jul-21-2015

..... to the child. ? 42. the provisions of sections 7, 9, 12, 13, 17 and 25 of the guardians and wards act, 1890, and section 6 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, makes it manifestly clear that the paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor child and not statutory rights of the parents. the problem has to be solved rather with a human touch. in ..... parental house at honavar and the respondent/mother is the natural guardian in respect of her children, who are minors. as per section 6(a) of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 (32 of 1956), the father, and after him, the mother is the natural guardian of the minor children and as on the date of the application filed for custody, the age of the children was ..... as to whom the custody should be given. 36. the provisions of section 13 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, reads as under: 13. welfare of minor to be paramount consideration.- (1) in the appointment or declaration of any person as guardian of a hindu minor by a court, the welfare of the minor shall be the paramount consideration. (2) no person shall be entitled to the ..... marriage among hindus, if the court is of the opinion that his or her guardianship will not be for the welfare of the minor. ? 37. while considering the provisions of section 13 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, interpreting section 13, the hon'ble supreme court, in the case of gaurav nagpal vs. sumedha nagpal, reported in (2009) 1 scc 42, has held as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 09 2015 (HC)

Sharanappa Shivappa Alur and Others Vs. Shivappa Bharamappa Alur and O ...

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

Decided on : Jun-09-2015

..... properties executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of 4th defendant is not for the benefit of minors and the plaintiffs have preferential right of purchase share of coparcener under section 22 of hindu succession act, 1956? 4. whether the plaintiffs prove that they are prepared to purchase suit property for the market ..... other issues run fatal to the case of the plaintiffs which would be discussed herein later. therefore, even if issue 11 with regard to guardianship of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and non-inclusion of two other properties in the suit for partition is held in favour of the plaintiffs, the ..... maintainable. adverting to the said contentions, the trial court held that even though guardianship is not discharged, plaintiff 5 continued to act as a next friend. therefore, only because plaintiffs 1 and 2 did not appear before the court after they attained majority, ..... 14 and 15 of the written statement is to the effect that the plaintiffssuit is fatal as some of the plaintiffs have attained majority and guardianship is not discharged; that since rest of the properties of the family had not been brought about for partition, such a suit is not ..... his written statement denying the plaint averments. he has pleaded that the suit is not maintainable since some of the plaintiffs have attained majority and guardianship is not discharged; that there are in all 4 properties which are ancestral properties. the partition that is sought for is with respect to .....

Tag this Judgment!


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