Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Suresh Damu Patil, challenged an order passed by the learned District Judge-II, Bhusaval, dated 2nd April 2016, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.67/2015. The respondent no.2, Bhagwat Damu Patil, had filed the application under Section 39 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking cancellation of the appellant's guardianship over Kum. Champavati Damu Patil (respondent no.1) and also prayed for his own appointment as guardian under Sections 8 and 10 of the Act. The District Judge allowed the application, aggrieved by which the appellant filed the present appeal. During hearing, the High Court noticed that Kum. Champavati was admittedly 47 years old and thus not a minor. The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 applies only to minors. Consequently, the proceedings under the Act were not maintainable. The court dismissed the appeal as infructuous, noting that no orders could have been passed under the Act for an adult. The court did not delve into the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Guardians and Wards Act - Applicability - Minority - The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 applies only to minors, i.e., persons under 18 years of age. Since Kum. Champavati was 47 years old, the proceedings under the Act were not maintainable. The court dismissed the appeal as infructuous. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 can be invoked for a person who is admittedly 47 years old and not a minor.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed as infructuous. No orders as to costs.
Law Points
- Guardians and Wards Act
- 1890 applies only to minors
- Adult cannot be subject of guardianship proceedings
- Appeal dismissed as infructuous
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (10) 8
First Appeal No. 2985 of 2016
Mr. Farooqui Kamaloddin N for Appellant, Mr. Gamot Praveen B for Respondents 1 and 2
Ku. Champawati d/o Damu Patil and Bhagwat s/o Damu Patil
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against order allowing application for cancellation of guardianship and appointment of new guardian under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought setting aside of the District Judge's order allowing the application for cancellation of his guardianship.
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the order passed by the learned District Judge-II, Bhusaval, dated 2nd April 2016, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.67/2015.
Previous Decisions
The District Judge allowed the application filed by respondent no.2 under Section 39 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, cancelling the appellant's guardianship and appointing respondent no.2 as guardian.
Issues
Whether the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 can be invoked for a person who is admittedly 47 years old and not a minor.
Submissions/Arguments
Not mentioned in the judgment text.
Ratio Decidendi
The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 applies only to minors. Since Kum. Champavati was 47 years old, the proceedings under the Act were not maintainable. Hence, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
Judgment Excerpts
no orders could have been passed in the present matter under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1980 in view of the fact that Kum.Champavati Damu Patil whose guardianship was sought in the aforesaid application is admittedly of the age of 47 and cannot be said to be a minor so as to invoke the provisions of Guardianship and Wards Act, 1980.
Procedural History
The respondent no.2 filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No.67/2015 under Section 39 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking cancellation of the appellant's guardianship and his own appointment as guardian. The District Judge allowed the application on 2nd April 2016. The appellant filed the present appeal against that order. The High Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous on 7th October 2016.
Acts & Sections
- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890: Section 39, Section 8, Section 10
