Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: hindu minority and guardianship act 1956 Sorted by: recent Year: 2015 Page 1 of about 38 results (0.164 seconds)

Dec 22 2015 (HC)

S. Ashok Kumar Vs. State rep. by The Assistant Commissioner of Police ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-22-2015

..... benefit and welfare of the child. 15. in surinder kaur sandhu (smt.) v. harbax singh sandhu, reported in (1984) 3 scc 698, this court held that section 6 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 constitutes father as a natural guardian of a minor son. however, that provision cannot supersede the paramount consideration as to what is conducive to the welfare of the ..... minor. 16. in mausami moitra ganguli v. jayant ganguli, jt reported in (2008) 6 sc 634, the hon'ble supreme court has held that the first and the paramount consideration is ..... act is towards the welfare of minor. in considering the question of welfare of minor, due regard has of course to be given to the right of the father as natural guardian but if the custody of the father cannot promote ..... be illegal." 13. in rosy jacob v. jacob a. chakramakkal, reported in (1973) 1 scc 840, the hon'ble apex court held that the object and purpose of the act is not merely the physical custody of the minor but for due protection of the rights of ward's health, maintenance and education. the power and duty of the court under the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 2015 (HC)

Indra Vs. B.G. Giri

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-01-2015

..... issue as to who is the natural guardian is to be determined with reference to the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, and not as per hindu law. in fact, the ingredients of hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 overrides the hindu marriage act, 1955. 49. coming to the aspect of custody of the minor child hanuraghav, it is to be pertinently pointed out by this court that the childas ..... child of tender age in terms of section 26 of the hindu marriage act, 1955 in the case of a hindu, a court of law has to be guided by the considerations underlying the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956. section 6 of the hindu minority and guardianship act lays down who the natural guardians of a hindu minor. sub section (1) of the section specifies that in the ..... at page 97. it is needless for this court to state that after completion of five years, automatically, the right of father as a natural guardian under hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 revives and prevails over the right of the mother as opined by this court. since the welfare of the child is paramount consideration in deciding the custody of ..... the child and even though the respondent/husband is the natural guardian of the minor child according to the relevant provision contained in hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, r/w guardianship and wards act, 1890, this court considering the welfare of the minor and also taking note of the fact that the child is taking treatment for his learning disability .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 30 2015 (HC)

V. Vinod Kumar Vs. V. Arunadevi

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-30-2015

..... 'ble division bench of the kerala high court, at paragraph 4, held as follows: "4. section 6 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 states that the natural guardian of a hindu minor in respect of the minor's person as well as in respect of the minor's property are in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl, the father, and after him, the mother ..... to be set aside. however, the respondent is at liberty to seek for remedy either under section 26 of the hindu marriage act, 1955 or under section 7 of guardians and wards act, 1890, r/w. sections 6 and 13(2) of hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956. ? 103. one of the provisions, which this court applied to the facts and circumstances of the reported case and ..... . learned counsel for the wife/mother further submitted that there is no procedural irregularity in entertaining a petition under the domestic violence act. according to her, section 6(a) of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, states that the custody of minor, who has not completed the age of 5 years, shall ordinarily be with the mother and therefore, the husband/father is having illegal ..... court or the district court in a proceeding arising under section 25 of the guardians and wards act read with section 6 of the act or for matrimonial relief. ? 79. no doubt, an application under section 25 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, read with section 6 of the act, is maintainable, still the rights of the wife/mother, to seek for interim custody of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 2015 (SC)

L.C. Hanumanthappa (Since Dead)represented by His Lrs. Vs. H.B.Shivaku ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-26-2015

..... was taken for the said alienations. the question is, in such circumstances, are the alienations void or voidable?. in section 8(2) of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, it is laid down, inter alia, that the natural guardian shall not, without previous permission of the court, transfer by sale any part of ..... the immoveable property of the minor. in sub-section (3) of the said section, it is specifically provided that any disposal of immoveable property by a natural ..... the basis of the suit as it stood before the amendment of the plaint was that the sale transactions made by laxmibai as guardian of the minors were ab initio void and, therefore, liable to be ignored. by introducing the prayer for setting aside the sale deeds the basis of the ..... guardian, in contravention of sub-section (2) is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him. there is, therefore, little scope for doubt that the alienations made by laxmibai which are under challenge in the ..... owner in possession of the schedule property. if the declaration as sought is not granted the plaintiff who is the absolute owner from 05/05/1956 and enjoying the property as absolute owner thereof, will be put great loss and prejudice. on the other hand no hardship or prejudice will .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 21 2015 (HC)

Raivathari Madhupati Singhania and Others Vs. Madhupati Vijaypat Singh ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-21-2015

..... kinds of assets by ownership and disposition, and each of these must, therefore, be considered separately. since ms. deshmukh places her case on a reading on the provisions of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 ( hmga ?), it is necessary to summarize the claims. these are summarized in the following tabulation: sr nomofs clause-schedule-partdisposition in mofsplaintiffs claim1.cl. 5, sch. ii, part ..... of married girl the husband; 8. powers of natural guardian. (1) the natural guardian of a hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable, and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor s estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the ..... v sridhar sutar (1996) 8 scc 54)specifically described the various provisions of this act as beads of the same string . in particular, it said, section 8 cannot be viewed in isolation. the law does not ordinarily contemplate a natural guardian of the undivided interest of a hindu minor in joint family property. consequently, prior permission of a court is not required for ..... hmga, there are other provisions of that act that demand attention, as mr. tulzapurkar and mr. dwarkadas point out. specifically, we are also concerned with sections 6(1), 8(2), 8(3), 8(4) and 12 of the hmga. these read: 6. natural guardians of a hindu minor. the natural guardians of a hindu minor, in respect of the minor s person as well as in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 2015 (HC)

Sreenivasagopalan Ananthakrishna Vs. Meenakshi Tripurari

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

Decided on : Jul-31-2015

..... paramount consideration is the welfare and interest of the child and not the rights of the parents under a statute. even the statutes, namely, the guardians and wards act, 1890 and the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 make it clear that the welfare of the child is a predominant consideration. in a matter of this nature, particularly, when the father and mother are fighting their ..... court under any law for the time being in force in respect of proceedings, inter alia as to proceedings in relation to guardianship of the person or custody of or access to any minor. under section 10(1) of the act of 1984, the family court is deemed to be a civil court and provisions of the code of civil procedure, 1908 are ..... required to be considered at the outset. under section 7 of the said act, power has been conferred on the court to make an order as to guardianship after being satisfied that the same would be for the welfare of the minor. the provisions of section 12 of the said act grant power to make an interlocutory order in the matter of production of ..... the minor and interim protection of person and property of the minor. section 12(1) of the said act reads thus: 12. power to .....

Tag this Judgment!

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!

Jul 15 2015 (HC)

Samela and Ors Vs. State and Ors

Court : Rajasthan - Jodhpur

Decided on : Jul-15-2015

..... perpetuity, but being a juristic person, has a judicial status with the power of suing or being sued under the provisions of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, immovable property of minor cannot be sold without the permission of the court and hence the deity lands cannot be alienated except for legal necessity after obtaining the permission of the court.46. the ..... so, to what extent?. answer:- no time limit has been fixed for reference under section 82 of the rajasthan land revenue act, 1956 and under section 232 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 in respect of the land held by a hindu idol (deity), and thus a reference can be made within a reasonable time, which will depend upon the facts and circumstances of ..... ) in the manner that even if no time limit has been fixed for reference under section 82 of the rajasthan land revenue act, 1956 and under section 232 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 in respect of the land held by a hindu idol (deity), a reference can be made within a reasonable time, which will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each ..... nature against the holder?. (v) whether any time limit can be fixed for reference u/s 82 of the rajasthan land revenue act, 1956 and u/s.232 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 in respect of the land held by a hindu idol (deity). if so, to what extent?. .2. a large number of writ petitions are pending in the rajasthan high court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 15 2015 (HC)

Shri Shanti Nath Ji Sthan Deh Vs. the State of Raj. and Ors

Court : Rajasthan - Jodhpur

Decided on : Jul-15-2015

..... perpetuity, but being a juristic person, has a judicial status with the power of suing or being sued under the provisions of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956, immovable property of minor cannot be sold without the permission of the court and hence the deity lands cannot be alienated except for legal necessity after obtaining the permission of the court.46. the ..... so, to what extent?. answer:- no time limit has been fixed for reference under section 82 of the rajasthan land revenue act, 1956 and under section 232 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 in respect of the land held by a hindu idol (deity), and thus a reference can be made within a reasonable time, which will depend upon the facts and circumstances of ..... ) in the manner that even if no time limit has been fixed for reference under section 82 of the rajasthan land revenue act, 1956 and under section 232 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 in respect of the land held by a hindu idol (deity), a reference can be made within a reasonable time, which will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each ..... nature against the holder?. (v) whether any time limit can be fixed for reference u/s 82 of the rajasthan land revenue act, 1956 and u/s.232 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 in respect of the land held by a hindu idol (deity). if so, to what extent?. .2. a large number of writ petitions are pending in the rajasthan high court .....

Tag this Judgment!


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