DEVILAL BHAGAT Vs. REKHA BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.7.2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Guardianship Case No. 5/2001 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for appointment of guardian of the person and property of minors has been dismissed holding that the said petition is not maintainable.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The petitioner, being the grand father of the minor, Priyanka Bhagat and also being the head of the family, tiled an application before the District Judge, Bokaro at Chas for his appointment as guardian of the person and property of his minor grand daughter. The said petition was registered as Guardianship Case No. 5/2001. The District Judge, Bokaro, however, transferred the case to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro for disposal. Thereafter, the case remained pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro. T he petitioner appeared before the Family Court and the case was taken; up for hearing. The Principal Judge, Family Court finally dismissed the application holding that the said application for appointment of guardian in respect of person and property of the minor is not maintainable. The operative portion of the order passed by the Family Court reads as under: It is pertinent to not e In re that by virtue of Sec. 7 (g) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 a power/jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Family Court to entertain a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardian hip of the person of any minor. The present guardianship case since relates to the appointment of guardian of the person and property of case since relates to the appointment of guardian of the person and property of the minor both, the same is not maintainable/entertainable before this court because it lacks the said jurisdiction. For the reasons stated above this guardianship case, accordingly stands dismissed as not maintainable. The applicant, however, shall (sic) entitled to see his remedy before an appropriate (sic), if so advised.

(3.) WITHOUT going into the merits of the case of the parties, the moot question that falls for consideration is as to whether the Principal Judge, Family Court was justified in dismissing the application as not maintainable. Originally the application was filed by the petitioner under Sec. 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. Sec. 9 of the Act provides that an application with respect 16/5/2014 Page 32 Godaro Hansda Versus State Of Jharkhand to guardianship of person and property of the minor shall be made before the District Judge having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides or the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where he has the property.