Dismissed

Sri M Mariraja v. Sri.S.Jayashankar

Karnataka HC24 Mar 2021MFA/5701/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed an appeal under Section 47 of the Guardian and Wards Act. The court held that since the beneficiary, a once-minor child, had attained majority, the scope of the previous guardianship petition could not be enlarged and the appeal was rendered infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as the minor beneficiary had attained majority, rendering the petition invalid.

Sri M Mariraja Vs Sri.S.Jayashankar — Child Custody and Guardianship | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

¶7

M.F.A.No.5701/2016 (GW)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI M MARIRAJA S/O LATE CHIKKAMARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT No.83, RAJAMANE, 1^ST CROSS, K.R. PURAM EXTENSION BANGALORE-560 036.

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI M.RAMASWAMY, ADV.)

¶12

AND :

¶13

SRI S.JAYASHANKAR, S/O G.SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, GANIGARAPETE, DODDABALLAPUR-561 203.

¶14

SMT J.MADHURA D/O S.JAYASHANKAR, W/O MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NAGARATHPET, WARD No.10, SHIDLAGHATTA-562 105 CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.

¶15

SRI J.SAGAR S/O S.JAYASHANKAR,

¶16

- 2 -

¶17

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT GANIGARAPETE, DODDABALLAPUR-561 203. …RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT MONICA PATIL, ADV.)

¶19

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 47(a) OF THE GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT, R/W ORDER 41 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.01.2016 PASSED IN G & WC No.10003/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 7 & 8 OF THE GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT FOR APPOINTMENT OF PETITIONER AS GUARDIAN OF MINOR CHILD.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a

¶23

memo seeking direction to the respondents to comply with the following in the best interest and welfare of the minor who has attained majority:

¶24

“1] After the death of the parents of the minor, V.Harini, the 2^nd respondent has been acting as minor guardian and the minor after attaining majority is still in the clutches of the respondents.

¶25

2] The parents of the minor have left three immovable properties fetching a monthly rental income of more than Rs.1,00,000/- and besides in the hardware

¶26

¶27

shop business, the monthly income was around Rs.50,000/. Further, the parents have accumulated a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- in the LIC Bonds and made fixed deposits amounting to Rs.35,00,000/in the banks. The respondents have utilized all these receipts of income from the date of death of the parents of the minor and they have not furnished any accounts with regard to the income, receipts and expenditure either to this Hon’ble Court from the date of filing the above appeal or to the lower court during the proceedings. It appears that the respondents being the close relation of the minor have mis utilized and mismanaged the funds which are due to the minor. Therefore, they are liable to furnish accounts of this Hon’ble Court.

¶28

3] Late parents of the minor have also left gold and silver ornaments worth more than Rs.20,00,000/and the respondents are liable to make a statement about the custody of the same.

¶29

4] the respondents, keeping the minor in their custody have earned business income from out of the hardware shop run by late parents of the minor and they are liable to furnish the income account.

¶30

¶31

5] the minor [V.Harini] who has now attained majority may be summoned to this Hon’ble Court in order to ascertain whether she has been looked after well and about imparting education to her till today and her future plans to secure her life.

¶32

The appellant most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass necessary orders with regard to the disbursal of future income from the properties in order to safeguard her future and welfare.”

¶33

Indisputedly, the minor Kumari.V.Harini having attained majority, the scope of G & WC petition filed by the appellant before the Competent Court invoking the powers under Sections 7 and 8 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 cannot be enlarged and as such the prayer sought in the memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellant being misconceived, stands rejected.

¶34

It is needless to observe that the appellant is

¶35

at liberty to take recourse to appropriate proceedings in

¶36

accordance with law, for redressal of the grievances, if any.

¶37

Learned counsel for the respondents has filed a memo submitting that the minor child Kumari.V.Harini has attained majority and now she is aged about 20 years. Hence, this appeal does not survive for consideration.

¶38

The said memo is placed on record.

¶39

The minor child Kumari.V.Harini having attained majority, the appeal stands dismissed as having rendered infructuous.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

NC.

Sri M Mariraja v. Sri.S.Jayashankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Mariraja v. Sri.S.Jayashankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Kashinath Rao Rasure Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B S Chandrashekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Venkappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Pradeep M S Vs Myola John Mascarenhas

Smt Rita Sabitha D' Souza Vs Mr Inas D' Souza

Mr Mazhar Pasha Vs Mr. Abdulla Siddiq