MT. YAMUNABAI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE record of this case indicates that Yamunabai was an unsatisfactory guardian: she did not file accounts, she expended Rs. 1,000 on a marriage without sanction of the Court and she did not obey the orders of the Court. On 25th January 1929, however, she had not been directed to be present in Court; a report was taken into consideration without giving her an opportunity to offer an explanation. She was removed from the guardianship and the reasons for her removal are not stated. She has appealed from this order under the provisions of Section 47, Guardians and "Wards Act.

(2.) IT appears to me that she should have been given notice setting out for which of the causes mentioned in Section 39 of the Act it was proposed to remove her. The course taken in Mahadeb Mondal V. Bidhi Chand Mondal [1914] 20 C.L.J. 298 appears a convenient one. It is highly undesirable that the order removing her from guardianship should be at once set aside the appellant's counsel is informed that she must appear before the District Judge on the day after the expiry of the vacation. She will then be informed of the reasons for the proposal to remove her from guardianship and will be allowed to give any explanation which she desires. In the meantime, however, she will not be guardian of the minor. I make no order regarding costs.