Child Welfare Crucial in Guardianship, Says Hc | Bombay News

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court is hearing a petition from the mother of an underage girl and one of her three maternal uncles to transfer her share of ownership as a gift to an uncle as the girl wants to take diksha voluntarily.
The mother has added a brother as a co-petitioner to ensure the continuation of the procedure in the event that she renounces the world before her surrender.
The petition for guardianship stated that the girl’s father died intestate in July 2012. His 50% share went to his wife and two minor children. The son took diksha at age 10, in February 2020. His share also went to his mother and sister. The mother and the daughter have respectively 75% and 25% of shares in the apartment. Before taking the diksha, they want to transmit their shares by donation to the brother of the mother and to the uncle of the minor. The petition indicates that the share of the minor daughter will be transferred by means of a deed of gift. However, to ensure her interest, the deed of donation “will not come into effect until after the diksha ceremony when the said minor girl has categorically renounced the world and becomes a Jain monk”.
Vacation judge, Judge Milind Jadhav, in his May 13 order, said the application for guardianship is made under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 and the Hindu Minority Act 1956 and guardianship. The object and motives of both laws are geared towards the welfare of the minor and this is the most important consideration for the court when appointing a guardian. “The welfare of the minor child is a primary consideration in the appointment of a guardian. The term tutor should be taken in its widest possible sense. It must be measured not only in terms of money and physical comfort, but must also include the moral and ethical well-being of the child,” he said.
He added that while the object of the above laws is to seek the absolute welfare of the child, the petitioners, after applying to be appointed guardian, sought to transfer by gift the minor’s share in the property in question without any counterpart and by the execution of a donation. deed.
“Thus, whether such reparations will be geared towards the welfare of the minor in the present case and fulfill the purpose and reasons of the two aforementioned statutes is the question before this court,” Judge Jadhav said, adding that the request is silent on this aspect. During the hearing, Judge Jadhav expressing concern asked what would happen if after coming of age the girl changed her mind and decided to return to a normal life.
Judge Jadhav also said there was ‘ambiguity’ in the transfer in 2019 on the part of the minor son, as there is no record showing that HC or any other court authorized the appointment of a guardian to transfer his share. He ordered the petitioners to file additional responses to the issues raised by the court. Further, on whether HC has jurisdiction to hear the case, as under the 1890 Act the definition of court includes the civil or district court of the city and an appeal will be made to HC. He appointed Barrister Naushad Engineer as amicus curiae to assist the court.

Comments are closed.