Judgment:
(308) FAO No.2748 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIARH FAO No.2748 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.06.2014.
Sheela and another ……Appellant.
Versus General Public and another …..Respondent.
CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE S.S.SARON HON’BLE Ms.JUSTICE NAVITA SINGH Present: None.
S.S.SARON, J.
Sabri (respondent No.2) filed a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (Act – for short) seeking custody of the minor Wali Khan.
The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division).Patiala, vide order dated 26.07.1996, had taken up the file on the said date on an application filed by Wali Khan – minor, who had attained the age of majority.
The order dated 21.10.1992 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.2417 of 1992 was perused by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division).In terms of the said order, it was observed that the minor's age at that time i.e.21.10.1992 was stated to be 17 yeaRs.Therefore, admittedly, the minor had become major on the date of passing the order on 26.07.1996 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division).Patiala.
The petition was, therefore, held to have been rendered infructuous.
Accordingly, the application under Section 25 of the Act was dismissed as having become infructuous.
Aggrieved against the order dated 26.07.1996 passed by the Malik Ramesh 2014.07.03 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh (308) FAO No.2748 of 1996 -2- learned Civil Judge (Senior Division).Patiala, the appellants – Sheela wife of Balbir Khan and Mallan wife of Bholla have filed the present appeal.
In terms of order dated 21.10.1992 passed in Civil Revision No.2417 of 1992, this Court had quashed the order dated 25.05.1992 and a direction was issued to respondent No.1 in the said civil revision petition to restore the child to respondents No.2 and 3 in the said revision petition (who are the appellants in the present appeal) from whose custody the minor was taken under the orders of the Guardian Judge.
The parties were directed to appear before the learned Guardian Judge, Patiala, on 29.10.1992, on which date the minor was to be handed over in Court to the said respondents No.2 and 3 in Civil Revision No.2417 of 1992 (who are appellants herein) and if an effort was made to delay the event, the Guardian Judge was directed to take immediate steps to ensure that the order of this Court is complied with forthwith.
It was also directed that the petitioner in the said civil revision would be treated as a co-respondent in the guardianship proceedings and shall be allowed to defend her case.
This Court, on 07.10.1996 in the present appeal, passed the following order:- “Present: Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Senior Advocate with Mr.G.M.Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
Heard.
Mr.Kapoor submits that respondent Smt.
Sabri filed the petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, which was pending.
In the revision, the High Court passed the order on 21.10.1992 wherein a direction Malik Ramesh 2014.07.03 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh (308) FAO No.2748 of 1996 -3- was given to hand over the custody of this minor child Wali Khan to respondents 2 and 3 Mallan and Sheela.
That order was to be carried out by the Guardian Judge.
No doubt, in this order, it is mentioned that the minor is over the age of 17 years and will attain the age of majority in a couple of months, but the petition filed under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act was of Smt.
Sabri and not of this minor/major Wali Khan.
But on the petition filed on behalf of Wali Khan by his counsel, who appeared for the fiRs.time in the lower Court to file this application, the lower Court has dismissed the application as having become infructuous.
Counsel submits that thereby they have been denied the benefit of the order passed by the High Court.
Issue notice of motion to the respondents.
To come up on 19.11.1996.
Sd/- (Dr.
Sarojnei Saksena) 7.10.1996 Judge”.
In terms of the above order, the grievance of the appellants (respondents No.2 and 3 in Civil Revision No.2417 of 1992) was that the order dated 21.10.1992 was to be carried out.
It was noticed in the said order that the minor was stated to be over 17 years of age and was to attain the age of majority in a couple of months, but the petition filed under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act was of Smt.
Sabri (respondent No.2 herein) and not of the minor Wali Khan.
However, on the petition filed on behalf of Wali Khan by his counsel, who appeared for the fiRs.Malik Ramesh 2014.07.03 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh (308) FAO No.2748 of 1996 -4- time in the lower Court and filed the application, the lower Court had dismissed the application as having become infructuous.
Therefore, it was stated that the appellants Sheela and Mallan had been denied the benefit of the order dated 21.10.1992.
Today when the case was taken up no one has appeared or is present on behalf of the appellants.
The minor in any case has attained the age of majority and his custody at this stage is not to be given to any of the parties.
In the circumstances, the appeal has been rendered infructuous.
Even otherwise, no one has appeared for the parties.
In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed in default.
(S.S.SARON) JUDGE (NAVITA SINGH) JUDGE3006.2014 Ramesh Malik Ramesh 2014.07.03 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh