TRINE HOIST THOMSEN Vs. CHILDRENS NATIONAL INSTITUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by Trine Hoist Thomsen against the order of the First Additional District Judge, Allahabad dismissing her application under section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act for being appointed guardian of the person of the minor girl. Km. Chaitali. The ap pellant is a resident of Denmark. She wished to take under her guardianship a minor Indian girl and for that purpose approached the respondent. The minor is reported to he an orphan living under the care and custody of the respondent the Children's National Institute, Swaraj Bhawan Allahabad. Learned counsel appearing for the Institute has stated that the minor is an orphan and the Insti tute has no knowledge about her parents re lations or religion. The Institute, he has further stated, has no objection to the appel lant being appointed as the minor's guardian.

(2.) THE trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that on the material available on the record, it was not established that it would be for the "well being of the minor" that the applicant be appointed her guardian. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the affidavits had been filed in the trial Court and on the basis thereof, the Court below should have come to the conclusion that it would be for the welfare of the minor to appoint the ap pellant as the guardian. The affidavit has been sworn by the Notary Public in Den mark. Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, provides-

(3.) THE purpose of appointment of a guardian by a Court under the Guardians and Wards Act is to protect the child and not to grant a licence for taking the child out of the country. As put by Bennett J. in Re. D. (INFANTS), (1943) 2'All ER 411, "the jurisdiction is based upon the need of an infant for protection which in my judg ment having regard to the authorities give this division of the Court jurisdiction to ap point a guardian." This view finds support from the speech of Lord Langdale in John-stone v. Beattie, (1843) 10 Cl and Fin. 42 (HL) at p. 145, where Lord Langdale ob served: "Amidst the differences of opinion which exist in this case, it is satisfactory to me that no doubt is thrown upon the juris diction of the Court of Chancery to appoint guardians for any infant residing in England. The whole property of an infant may be situate in a foreign country and tutors and curators of the person and estate of the in fant may have been duly appointed accord ing to the law of the country where the pro perty is; and yet it may be evident that without the authority of a guardian duly ap pointed here and subject to the control of the Court of Chancery the infant may be without the protection which may be ab solutely necessary for its welfare and even for its safety." Although it is the guardian who directly protects the minor the ultimate responsibility remains with the Court, when it appoints a guardian.