MINU ROSELINE MORRIS Vs. MINI THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears to us that the appellant is voicing a genuine grievance. She filed an application for appointing herself as guardian for the person and property of a minor child by name Ria Ceacil Morris, who is the daughter of the 1st respondent, at that time, residing at the 2nd respondent establishment. The respondents did not resist her application. According to the appellant, she produced 13 documents, which will substantiate her claim that she is, in all means, qualified and has eligibility to be appointed as guardian of the minor and appointing her as the guardian of the minor will be to the advantage and welfare of the minor. Sri. Shoby K. Francis, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that pursuant to an interim order passed by the Family Court itself on 14/03/2011, the custody of the minor is presently with the appellant herself. Once the appellant is got appointed as the guardian of the minor, the appellant will take requisite steps for adopting the minor as her own child as she has no child at all. According to the learned counsel, the Court below did not consider any of the items of evidence produced by the appellant. The Court below dismissed the original petition filed by the appellant by passing a cryptic order. The counsel referred to Sections 13 and 17 of the Guardians & Wards Act.

(2.) The submissions of Shri. Shoby are not resisted before us by anybody even though the respondents have been served with notice. It appears to us that the respondents are supporting the appellant. We cannot approve the manner in which the Court below has dealt with OP No. 1014/2010.