B RAMAN Vs. TO WHOM SO EVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'act of 1984'), the legality and validity of order dated 31-10-06 passed by the Presiding Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in MJC No. 57/06 is being questioned. By the impugned order, the Family Court while allowing the guardianship of the person of V. Raghawan has declined the claim of the appellant to regulate the bank account of V. Raghawan.

(2.) THE facts in nutshell are that V. Raghawan is the son of K. S. Venkatramani and V. Rajeshwari. K. S. Venkatramani was employed as temporary Analyst in Town and Country Planning Organisation, E-Block, Vilas bhawan, New Delhi. He expired on 31-7-67, leaving behind his wife V. Rajeshwari and son V. Raghawan, a mentally ill person admitted in Dr. Bose memorial Hospital Chennai. After the death of her husband V. Rajeshwari came to Bhopal and lived with her brother, the present appellant, who was at relevant time posted in BHEL. That V. Rajeshwari, mother of V. Raghawan expired on 10-1-2001. During her lifetime V. Rajeshwari met medical expenses for the treatment of her son from the pension she received in lieu of her husband's service. That after the death of V. Rajeshwari, the appellant is looking after V. Raghawan. That V. Rajeshwari was having joint account along with her mother B. Laxmi in Indian Overseas Bank Mayiladutharai, Savings Bank A/c no. 19553 having Rs. 28,840. 28; Canara Bank Mayiladutharai, Savings Bank A/c no. 6419 of Rs. 41,574. 42; State Bank of India, Mayiladutharai, Savings Bank a/c No. 01190018275 of Rs. 18,807. 04 and Fixed Deposit in SBI to the tune of rs. 30,000/-, Canara Bank for an amount of Rs. 31,192. 48. That B. Laxmi, mother of the appellant and V. Rajeshwari, also died on 28-5-2000 leaving behind V. Raghawan as the sole successor. It was to declare himself as guardian of the V. Raghawan and to operate the aforesaid Bank A/cs, the appellant filed an application under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with the provision of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. The Family Court while entertaining the appellant's claim for the guardianship of V. Raghawan has declined the permission to operate the aforesaid Bank A/cs. The appellant is aggrieved of refusal of permission to operate the Bank A/cs belonging to V. Raghawan and therefore, this appeal.

(3.) THE solitary issue, which therefore crops up for consideration in the present appeal is whether the Family Court was justified in declining the claim of the appellant to operate the Bank A/cs on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to grant the permission to operate the said A/c.