Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Jaseena, vs Nil

Jaseena, vs NIL

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 03, 2022
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1446851

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
MFA (G & W)/36/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jaseena,

Respondent

NIL

Excerpt

.....court appointed the first appellantas the guardian of sithara sathar and directed the first appellant to deposit the share of dcrg and gpf due to sithara sathar in a nationalised bank. aggrieved by the same, appellants have approached this court.5. if the appellants intended to purchase aproperty in the name of minor along with them, there is no impediment in utilising the fund due to the minor. the court only need to concern about protecting interest of the minor. if the appellants furnish the details of the proposed property to be purchased and details of the amount required, the district court shall grant the necessary permission to purchase the property in the name of the minor as well by utilising the retirement benefits of the late abdul sathar.6. in view of the submission that the appellants will furnish the details of the property to be purchased by utilising the share of minor, we set aside the impugned order for reconsideration. the appellants shall furnish the details of the purchased property and otherdetails, as insisted by the district court. an appropriate order shall be passed by the district court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. this miscellaneous first appeal is disposed of accordingly. a.muhamed mustaque, judge sophy thomas, judge as

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 14TH MAGHA, 1943 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.10.2021 OP(G&W) NO.9/2020 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS: 1 JASEENA, AGED 42 YEARS W/O. LATE ABDUL SATHAR, PAINUMMOOTTIL VADAKATHIL, 2 SUHAR VARDHI SATHAR, AGED 21 YEARS S/O. LATE ABDUL SATHAR, PAINUMMOOTTIL VADAKATHIL, BY ADVS. A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM) M.A.AZEEZ MUSHTAQUE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: NIL THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The first appellant is the widow of late Abdul Sathar. The second appellant is the major son born to the first appellant in wedlock with late Abdul Sathar. In the wedlock another child was born to the first appellant namely Sithara Sathar, she is now aged 11 years.

2. Shri.Abdul Sathar died on 05.10.2019 while in service as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police.

3. Appellants approached the District Court,

Mavelikara for appointing the first appellant as a legal guardian of the minor daughter of Sithara Sathar and to claim the share of DCRG and Provident Fund payable in share of the minor. According to the appellants, they want to purchase a property utilizing the DCRG and Provident Fund contribution and also utilizing her own money.

4. The District Court appointed the first appellant

as the guardian of Sithara Sathar and directed the first appellant to deposit the share of DCRG and GPF due to Sithara Sathar in a Nationalised Bank. Aggrieved by the same, appellants have approached this Court.

5. If the appellants intended to purchase a

property in the name of minor along with them, there is no impediment in utilising the fund due to the minor. The court only need to concern about protecting interest of the minor. If the appellants furnish the details of the proposed property to be purchased and details of the amount required, the District Court shall grant the necessary permission to purchase the property in the name of the minor as well by utilising the retirement benefits of the late Abdul Sathar.

6. In view of the submission that the appellants will furnish the details of the property to be purchased by utilising the share of minor, we set aside the impugned order for reconsideration. The appellants shall furnish the details of the purchased property and other

details, as insisted by the District Court. An appropriate order shall be passed by the District Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is disposed of accordingly. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE AS

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial