The appellant petitioned for appointment as guardian of the minor son. The High Court held that the minor had attained majority on the date of decision, rendering the petition infructuous. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The appeal was dismissed as being rendered infructuous.
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.
FAO No.1866 of 1999
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.1866 of 1999 Date of decision: 13.08.2013
Sushila Rani and another
.....Appellants
versus
Smt. Nashima Jindal
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SARON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.BANGARH
Present: None for the parties.
S.S. SARON, J.
The appellants Sushila Rani and her husband Sat Parkash filed a petition on 05.08.1996 before the Guardian Judge, Ambala seeking their appointment as guardian of the minor namely Ravi Jindal alias Shubham whose date of birth is 13.11.1993.
The son of the appellants namely Sunil Kumar was married to the respondent Smt. Nashima Jindal. From the marriage they had a son namely Ravi Jindal alias Shubham. Sunil Kumar son of the appellants died in a road accident on 31.03.1994. Sunil Kumar was doing his business at New Delhi and his wife Nashima Jindal (respondent) along with the minor were also residing at Delhi. They shifted to Ambala City and started living with the appellants after the death of Sunil Kumar. The appellants had been keeping the respondent and the minor child with all love and affection. It is alleged that the father of the respondent-Smt. Nashima Jindal namely Hari Ram Gupta persuaded the respondent-Smt. Nashima Jindal to leave her matrimonial home. On 30.04.1994, the respondent went to
Amit Kaundal 2013.08.22 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
-2-
FAO No.1866 of 1999
the house of her father by stating that she would come back in a few days. However, she did not return for about a month. The appellants were unsuccessful to persuade her to return along with the minor. The father of the respondent, it is alleged, got a civil suit filed from the respondent in respect of the LIC policy. The said suit was decreed holding the respondent and the minor to be entitled to 2/3rd share and appellant No.1-Sushila Rani (mother of the deceased) to be entitled to 1/3rd share. The present petition was filed for appointment of guardian of the minor in respect of his person and property.
The learned Guardian Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.03.1999 dismissed the petition. The appellants aggrieved against the same filed the present appeal, which was admitted on 12.09.2000.
As already noticed the date of birth of the minor Ravi Jindal alias Shubham is 13.11.1993. Therefore, as on date he has attained the age of majority and the question of appointing a guardian for him no longer survives. In the circumstances, the present appeal has been rendered infructuous as the minor has attained the age of majority.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as having been rendered
infructuous.
(S.S. SARON) JUDGE
(S.P. BANGARH) 13.08.2013 JUDGE A.Kaundal
Amit Kaundal 2013.08.22 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition for appointment of a guardian survives since the minor child has attained the age of majority.
Whether the appeal filed regarding the dismissal of the guardian petition is maintainable.
What is the consequence of a guardian petition being rendered infructuous due to the child attaining majority.
Sushila Rani
Sat Parkash
Smt. Nashima Jindal
S.S. Saron
S.P. Bangarh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
