Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Ex Parte Appointment of Guardian Under Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 — Natural Father Not Heard Before Removal. Family Court Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Guardianship Matters Under Family Courts Act, 1984, and Mere Murder Charge Without Conviction Does Not Disqualify Father Under Mohammedan Law.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 133
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Mohd. Azeemoddin, challenged the order dated 02.09.2016 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-3, Aurangabad, in M.A.R.J.I. No.160/2016, which appointed the respondent No.2 (the aunt) as guardian of the person and property of his minor twin children. The appellant is the natural father of the children and is facing a murder charge for the death of his wife (the aunt's sister). The aunt filed the guardianship application under Section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, alleging that the appellant had murdered his wife and thus was disqualified from inheritance under Mohammedan Law, and that he had an evil eye on the property. The trial court allowed the application ex parte, without impleading the appellant. The appellant contended that he was not made a party, that the District Court lacked jurisdiction because a Family Court exists at Aurangabad, and that he is presumed innocent until convicted. The High Court held that the natural father cannot be removed without hearing him, and that the Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction under the Family Courts Act, 1984. The court also noted that under Mohammedan Law, disqualification from inheritance arises only upon conviction, not on mere accusation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Family Court for fresh consideration after hearing all parties.

Headnote

A) Family Law - Guardianship - Natural Guardian - Right to be Heard - The father, being the natural guardian, cannot be removed from guardianship without affording him an opportunity of hearing, especially when he is not convicted of any offence. The order passed behind his back is violative of principles of natural justice. (Paras 4-6)

B) Jurisdiction - Family Court - Exclusive Jurisdiction - Under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to guardianship of minors. Since a Family Court is established at Aurangabad, the learned Adhoc District Judge-3 lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 11 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. (Paras 4-6)

C) Mohammedan Law - Inheritance - Disqualification - Murder - Under Mohammedan Law, a murderer is disqualified from inheritance only upon conviction. Mere pendency of a murder charge does not disqualify the father from being the natural guardian or from inheritance. (Paras 4-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the order appointing the aunt as guardian of minor children without impleading the natural father is sustainable, and whether the District Court had jurisdiction in view of the Family Court's establishment.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 02.09.2016 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-3, Aurangabad in M.A.R.J.I. No.160/2016 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Family Court, Aurangabad for fresh consideration after hearing all parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 16.09.2019.

Law Points

  • Natural guardian cannot be removed without hearing
  • Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over guardianship matters under Family Courts Act
  • 1984
  • Murder charge without conviction does not disqualify father from guardianship under Mohammedan Law
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (08) 4

First Appeal No.626 of 2019

2019-08-02

Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar (for appellant), Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, AGP (for respondent No.1), Mr. Syed Javed Kazi (for respondent No.2)

Mohd. Azeemoddin s/o Mohd. Hamidoddin

1. The State of Maharashtra, 2. Mumtaz Khatib w/o Mazid Khatib

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against order appointing aunt as guardian of minor children under Guardian and Wards Act, 1890.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought setting aside of the order dated 02.09.2016 appointing respondent No.2 as guardian.

Filing Reason

Appellant was not made a party to the guardianship proceedings; the District Court lacked jurisdiction due to existence of Family Court; and the appellant is not disqualified as he is not convicted.

Previous Decisions

The learned Adhoc District Judge-3, Aurangabad, allowed the application and appointed respondent No.2 as guardian of the children and their properties.

Issues

Whether the order appointing the aunt as guardian without impleading the natural father is sustainable. Whether the District Court had jurisdiction to entertain the guardianship application in view of the Family Court's establishment. Whether the appellant is disqualified from being guardian under Mohammedan Law merely on the basis of a murder charge.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that he was not made a party to the proceedings and was not served with notice, violating natural justice. Appellant argued that the District Court lacked jurisdiction as a Family Court exists at Aurangabad under the Family Courts Act, 1984. Appellant argued that he is presumed innocent until convicted, and mere charge of murder does not disqualify him under Mohammedan Law. Respondent No.2 argued that the appellant is a murderer and thus disqualified from inheritance and guardianship.

Ratio Decidendi

A natural father cannot be removed from guardianship without affording him an opportunity of hearing. The Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over guardianship matters under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Mere pendency of a murder charge does not disqualify a father from being the natural guardian under Mohammedan Law.

Judgment Excerpts

He being the natural guardian of his son and daughter, he could not be removed from his guardianship behind his back. In view of the establishment of the Family Court in Aurangabad under Family Courts Act, 1984, the petition under Section 11 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 ought not to have been entertained. Only upon the conviction that could have been a ground for disqualification.

Procedural History

Respondent No.2 filed M.A.R.J.I. No.160/2016 under Section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 before the Adhoc District Judge-3, Aurangabad. The court allowed the application on 02.09.2016, appointing respondent No.2 as guardian. The appellant filed First Appeal No.626 of 2019 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, which reserved judgment on 27.07.2019 and pronounced on 02.08.2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Guardian and Wards Act, 1890: Section 7, Section 11
  • Family Courts Act, 1984: Section 7
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Acquittal in Customs and Gold Control Act Case — Prosecution Fails to Prove Possession and Knowledge of Gold Bars Beyond Reasonable Doubt. Circumstantial Evidence of Recovery from Sweetmeat Box Insufficient to Establish Gu...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award for Violation of Natural Justice and Public Policy — Shares Directed to be Returned to Third Party Not Party to Arbitration. The court held that an award affecting rights of a person not party to arbitrat...