FAO No.1871 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1871 of 2001 Date of decision: 03.07.2014 Sunita .....Appellant versus Smt.
Channo Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE S.S.SARON HON’BLE Ms.JUSTICE NAVITA SINGH Present: None for the appellant.
S.S.SARON, J.
Sunita (appellant) on 14.02.1997 filed a petition under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with the provisions of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 seeking her appointment as guardian of the person and property of her minor son namely Ram Mehar.
Thereafter, Smt.
Reshma (respondent No.2) who is the father's sister ('bhua') of the minor Ram Mehar on 11.03.1997 filed a petition under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking her appointment as guardian of the person and property of the minor Ram Mehar.
Both the petitions filed by Sunita (appellant) and Reshma (respondent No.2) were consolidated by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat.
The petition filed by Sunita (appellant) was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat vide judgment and order dated 18.04.2001.
By the Amit Kaundalsame judgment and order, the petition of Reshma (respondent no.2) 2014.07.15 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1871 of 2001 -2- was allowed and she was appointed as guardian of the person and property of the minor subject to the conditions that she would not alienate the property of the minor in any way i.e.by way of sale, mortgage or by any other mode; besides, she was also held entitled to cultivate and manage the land and also entitled to give the land to any one for cultivation only for consideration but it was ordered that she shall not hand over the land to any one for cultivation for a period of more than two year at a stretc.and shall only be entitled to retain the land or hand over the same to any one for cultivation till the minor attains the age of majority.
The appointment of Smt.
Reshma as the guardian of the person and property of the minor was further subject to the condition that she shall deposit a sum of Rs.60,000/- per annum in the name of the minor in any nationalized bank till the minor attains the age of majority and shall spend the remaining income of the land for the welfare of the minor.
Sunita (appellant) aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.04.2001, has filed the present appeal.
Mange Ram, the father of the minor Ram Mehar was earlier married to Smt.
Chhanno Devi (respondent No.1).From the marriage between Mange Ram and Chhanno Devi (respondent No.1).they had four daughters namely Roshni, Shakuntla, Bala and Premo.
Later on Mange Ram married Sunita (appellant) with the consent of Chhanno Devi (respondent No.1) so as to continue the male lineage.
Ram Mehar minor was born from the marriage between Mange Ram and Sunita (appellant) on 23.12.1986.
Amit Kaundal 2014.07.15 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1871 of 2001 -3- Thereafter, two other daughters were born to the appellant namely Rina and Guddi.
Ram Mehar was taken to Risalu by Smt.
Reshma (respondent No.2) who is the sister of Mange Ram.
Her son Jaibir son of Ram Dia started living at the house of the appellant.
Mange Ram died in July, 1992.
After his death, the dispute arose between the parties regarding custody of the minor Ram Mehar.
As already noticed, the learned Additional District Judge has given the custody of the minor Ram Mehar to Reshma (respondent No.2) subject to the conditions as are mentioned in the order dated 18.04.2001.
The appeal filed by the appellant was admitted in this Court on 05.07.2001 and no stay was granted.
Today when the appeal has been taken up, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the parties.
In any case as already noticed the date of birth of the minor is 13/23.12.1986.
Therefore, as on date he has attained the age of majority.
As such, the question of appointing his guardian at this stage after the minor has attained the age of majority, no longer survives.
In the circumstances, the present appeal has been rendered infructuous as the minor has attained the age of majority.
Accordingly the appeal is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.
(S.S.SARON) JUDGE (NAVITA SINGH) JUDGE0307.2014 A.Kaundal Amit Kaundal 2014.07.15 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh