In a guardianship matter where the child is about to attain majority and expressed a desire to stay with the maternal uncle, the Court dismissed the appeal and observed that the Respondent No.1 shall be the legal guardian of the minor till she attains majority.
Respondent No.1 shall be the legal guardian of the child till she attains her majority.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
GUAP NO. 2 OF 2019
Rabinarayan Tah
..... Petitioner
Mr. S. Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
…. Tusarkanta Mohanty and others Opp. Parties Mr. Brahmananda Tripathy, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
01.08.2022
“10. I am convinced that dislocation of Smruti, at this stage from the house of petitioner No.1 where she has
Page 1 of 4
// 2 //
grown up sufficiently in good surroundings would not only impede her schooling but also it may cause emotional strain and depression to her. Thus, having bestowed my anxious consideration to the material on record and the observation made by His Lordship & considering the circumstances and bearing in mind the paramount consideration of the welfare of the child, I am of the opinion that it is not felt desirable to disturb the custody of Smruti Priyadarshini and further I am convinced her custody and welfare will be best served, if she continues to be in custody of petitioner No.1. Accordingly, I am of the view that in the present case, there is no ground to upset the prayer of the petitioner No.1. There is nothing on record to suggest that the welfare of the minor is in any way in peril in the hands of petitioner No.1. Rather in my opinion, the stability and security of the child is also an essential ingredient for a full development of child’s talent and personality in addition to the consideration of welfare of the child. 11. Thus, having considered the facts & circumstances of the case and going through the evidence led to that effect having known the wish and intelligent preference of petitioner No.2, after personal interaction with her keeping in view ratio of the afore cited case and above all the requirement of law regarding welfare of the minor (petitioner No.2) being the paramount consideration, while deciding for appointment of guardian, I am of the view that the petitioner No.1 is the suitable person to be appointed as legal guardian of minor girl Smruti Priyadarshini (petitioner No.2) to safeguard the interest and welfare of the minor who has got no adverse interest against the minor. Hence, it is ordered.”
A prayer is made by learned counsel for the Appellant for setting aside the impugned order and to remit the matter back to the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur for fresh adjudication of Guardian Petition No.2 of 2015.
Page 2 of 4
// 3 //
was residing with Respondent No.1, her brother. After her death, the child is with her maternal uncle-Respondent No.1. The child has never seen her father, the present Appellant. During interaction of the Court, the child has also expressed her desire to stay with her maternal uncle. Thus, interfering with the impugned order at this stage will certainly impede the welfare of the child. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order warrants no interference.
Page 3 of 4
// 4 //
bks
an observation that the Respondent No.1 shall be the legal guardian of the child till she attains her majority.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
Page 4 of 4
Rabinarayan Tah
Tusarkanta Mohanty
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
