Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: hindu minority and guardianship act 1956 Court: mumbai Page 1 of about 80 results (0.025 seconds)

Jan 16 2009 (HC)

Mohan Kumar Rayana Vs. Komal Mohan Rayana

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR308; 2009(111)BomLR979; 2009(2)MhLj868

..... in shantabai sonu barathe v. gautam vishnu shellar (1994) 2 mh.l.j.1879, after considering the provisions of sections 6, 17(3) and 25 of the hindu minority and guardianship act,1956 observed that the court was not justified in allowing the application on the basis of legal rights of the father.35. in the present case, the child anisha was ..... fitted to have custody of anisha in the present case.34. section 6 of the hindu minority and guardianship act,1956 speaks about the natural guardian of a hindu minor. under this provision, the natural guardians of a hindu minor, in respect of the minor's person as well as in respect of minor's property, excluding his/her undivided interest in the joint family property, is : ..... is in such compelling circumstances the respondent - mother moved the family court seeking custody of the minor daughter under section 6 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 (for short 'the act of 1956') read with section 7 and 25 of the guardians and wards act, 1890 (for short 'the act of 1890'). the appellant - father also filed the custody petition and both the petitions were ..... : air1977sc1359 , the supreme court, while dealing with the provisions of section 13 of the hindu minority and guardianship act,1956, observed that welfare of the minor to be paramount consideration while deciding the question of custody. in this case mother was ultimately declared entitled to guardianship and custody of 11 years old child and the father was given access to the child.10 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 2005 (HC)

Zaveed Pharukhi and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2005(4)ALLMR106; 2005(4)BomCR244; 2005(2)MhLj1061

..... validity of the sections on a true and proper construction of the said provisions. section 6(a) of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 reads as under :--'6. the natural guardians of a hindu minor, in respect of the minor's person as well as in respect of the minor's property (excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family property), are --(a) in the case of ..... hariharan's case the appellant had challenged the constitutional validity of section 6(a) of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 and section 19(b) of guardians and wards act, 1890. it was contended that the sections are violative of the constitution inasmuch as the mother of a minor is relegated to an inferior position on ground of sex alone since her right as a ..... a boy or an unmarried girl - the father, and after him, the mother : provided that the custody of a minor ..... no significance, as the court is primarily concerned with the best interests of the minor and his welfare in the widest sense while determining the question as regards custody and guardianship of the minor. the question, however, assumes importance only when the mother acts as the guardian of the minor during the lifetime of the father, without the matter going to the court, and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 2003 (HC)

Vishwanath Son of Bhika Kolase and Raghunath Son of Bhika Kolase Vs. K ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR1093; 2004(2)BomCR399

..... various provisions contained in the bill.act no.32 of 1956. hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 (32 of 1956) received the assent of the president on 25th august, 1956 after being passed by both the houses of parliament.the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 is supplemental to the following acts :-(i)indian majority act, 1875 (9 of 1875). (ii)guardians and wards act, 1890 (8 of 1890).(iii ..... )child marriage restraint act, 1929 (19 of 1929).(iv)hindu marriage act, ..... order to decide the said question, it will be necessary to take into consideration the provision of hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956. the said act was an act which was supplemental to act 8 of 1890 i.e. the guardians and wards act, 1890. it would be profitable to peruse the statement of objection which are reproduced herein below :statement ..... the plaintiffs that the defendant no.4 was their step-mother and she was not a natural guardian within the meaning of section 6 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 and since the permission having been not taken the said transaction was illegal. he further submitted that since the defendant no.4, the step- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 1983 (HC)

Manjula D/O Jagjivandas Adhia and anr. Vs. Himansu Prakash Boral and a ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1984(1)BomCR433; (1983)85BOMLR604

..... deceased husband of the 1st petitioner was a hindu. his power to appoint a testamentary guardian of his minor son is governed by the provisions of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956. section 9(1) and (2) of the hindu minority and guardianship act provides as follows :'9(1) a hindu father entitled to act as the natural guardian of his minor legitimate children may, by will, appoint a ..... of the minor's property (other than the ..... guardian for any of them in respect of the minor's person, in respect ..... any person as guardian.' thus, any appointment of a testamentary guardian by a hindu father by a will has no effect if the father predeceases the mother. in other words, so long as the mother of the minor is alive, her right to guardianship of a minor's person and property cannot be displaced by a testamentary guardian. and the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 25 1999 (HC)

Smt. Sandhya Rajan Antapurkar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2000(2)ALLMR331; 2000(2)BomCR832; I(2001)DMC135; 2000(2)MhLj58

..... 6 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, the father and after him the mother is natural guardian of hindu minor in respect of minor person as well as in respect of the minor's property. the undivided interest of the minor in joint family property has been specifically excluded by this section.8. section 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 prevents natural guardian of hindu minor to transfer by ..... without the permission of the court, provided alienation is for legal necessity or for the benefit of the minor and this right is left untouched by the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956. this is made clear by providing in section 12 of the act that when the joint family property is under the management of an adult member of the family, no ..... be sold, admittedly is a joint family property in which appellants have 1/ 5th share. the permission for sale is sought under section 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 and, section 29 of the guardians and wards act, 1890.4. the learned judge dismissed the application observing that the power of natural guardian to deal with the immoveable property of ..... present appeal has been preferred by the appellants.5. the only point to be decided in this appeal is whether the permission under section 8 of hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 or under section 29 of the guardians and wards act, 1890 in the present case is necessary.6. the property is admittedly joint family property in which smt. sandhya and her .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 2010 (HC)

Nivrutti S/O Deorao Biradar Vs. Balikabai D/O Shivram Biradar and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (2010)112BOMLR1988

..... the effect of section 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 on the sale deed executed by respondent no. 9 muktabai in favour of appellant nivrutti.?(2) whether respondent nos. 1 to 8 plaintiffs were entitled to relief of partition which ..... alienate property under section 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 is a substantial question of law. the parties, at the time of arguments, also requested this court to frame and consider following substantial questions of law.(1) what is ..... respondent no. 9 muktabai and, therefore, whatever rights respondent no. 9 had in respect of their shares in suit property, were under the provisions of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 (hereinafter, for brevity's sake 'the said act.').7. this appeal is admitted by order dated 3.9.1990 on the ground that non framing of issue in respect of permission of court to ..... v. laxminarayana : air 2001 sc 2607, it is laid down that where sale by guardian is without permission of the court, the same is voidable under section 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act. in that case, as is evident from paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment, in a suit for recovery of possession from purchaser filed by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 01 2008 (HC)

Shripati S/O. Santu Mane Vs. Goroba S/O. Nivarti Ghutukade and Chandra ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR2009Bom6; 2008(4)ALLMR882; 2008(4)BomCR515; (2008)110BOMLR2248; 2008(6)MhLj707

..... reconveyance by bhagirathibai on 20.03.1976 in the name of respondent no. 1-goroba, who was minor, the property became the property of minor and therefore permission ought to have been obtained under section 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the hindu minority act') and in absence of this the sale-deed is null and void and the decree passed by the ..... mother had sold joint family property owned by mother and her sons and the question raised for consideration of the court was -does section 9 of the hindu minority and guardianship act apply to the disposal of minors undivided interest in the joint family property by the natural guardian. the law laid down in paras 3, 4 and 5 is as follows:3. now the ..... minors undivided interest in joint family property.15. the another case cited is sunamani dei v. babaji das and ors. : air1974ori184 . in ..... and in exercise of those powers he can alienate joint family property so as to bind the interest of his minor coparceners in such property. these powers are not at all curtailed or affected in any way by the provisions of the hindu minority and guardianship act. it is argued that mother cannot be karta or manager and so she has no right to alienate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 1993 (HC)

Narayan Laxman Gilankar Vs. Udaykumar Kashinath Kaushik and Others

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1994Bom152; 1994(2)BomCR161; (1994)96BOMLR470; 1993(2)MhLj1653

1. (i) does section 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956(the act) apply to the disposal of minor's undivided interest in the joint family property by a natural guardian? (ii) has a minor, during his minority, right to challenge the transaction as being in violation of s. 8? these two questions of law -- and no other points -- are pressed for consideration in this second appeal.2 ..... of guardianship. section 2 makes it abundantly clear that the provisions of the act are in addition to and not in derogation of the guardians and wards act, 1890. section 5 gives overriding effect to the provisions on the matters dealt with in it and repeals all existing law --customary or statutory on those topics. section 6 deals with natural guardians of a hindu minor ..... any person claiming under him. scheme contemplates challenge only after the minor attains majority and not during his minority. after all natural guardian has dealt with the property and under s. 11 of the act de facto guardian's right to dispose of or deal with the property of a hindu minor is taken away and the transaction by him is treated to be void ..... ab initio. any action or result therefrom during minority can on certain grounds be again challenged by a minor on attaining majority and persons bona fide entering .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 06 2003 (HC)

Marotrao S/O Shamrao Pachare and ors. Vs. Usha Marotrao Pachare

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : I(2005)DMC337; 2004(1)MhLj253

..... passing the impugned order. it is submitted that the mother who is entitled to the custody of the children, has to file an application as per the provisions of hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 for obtaining the custody of the children. it is submitted that there was no perversity pointed out in the well reasoned order passed by the learned judicial magistrate, ..... to have custody of the child, the only recourse which she could have was to initiate proceedings for custody of the children as contemplated under section 6 of the hindu minority and guardianship act. the very fact that the children having in the exclusive custody of the applicant no. 1 for over three months, justified the magistrate to come to the conclusion ..... is entitled to file application seeking production warrant under section 97 of criminal procedure code. learned additional sessions judge without considering the aspect that there is a remedy provided under the hindu minority and guardianship act for handing over the custody of children, straightway ordered that since the non-applicant is entitled to custody, keeping custody of children with the father is a wrongful ..... very much relevant in proceeding before the civil court for custody of child under the provisions of the hindu minority and guardianship act.16. it is revolting to model sense of justice and fair play that a person who has lawful custody of the minor should be deprived of the custody by crude means which has no sanction under law, removal of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 1994 (HC)

Murlidhar Bapuji Valve Vs. Yallappa Lalu Chaugule Since Deceased by Hi ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1994Bom358; 1994(3)BomCR461; (1994)96BOMLR530

..... claim for specific performance is liable to be dismissed in entirety or in part?(4) whether in alternative, the plaintiff is entitled to rely on s. 8 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 in support of his claim and the suit transaction is liable to be enforced specifically on the footing that suit contract was entered into by defendant no. 1 for himself ..... natural guardian of the minors as held by the supreme court. the contracts entered into by natural guardian within scope of his ..... as contemplated under s. 8(3) of the above referred act which he failed to do. the defendant no. 2 never contended that the suit transaction was void ab initio wholly or in part. s. 8 of hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 or the principle thereof is applicable not merely to alienations of minor's property duly completed but also to contracts entered into by ..... -2-1966, i hold thatthe suit transaction is protected by theprovisions contained in s. 8(1) of the hinduminority and guardianship act, 1956 as inmy opinion the transaction was arrived at bydefendant no. 1 for himself and as the naturalguardian of the minor, for benefit of theminor and for benefit of estate. in myopinion, the defendant no. 2 ought to havechallenged the said .....

Tag this Judgment!


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