B. Bhattacharya, J.
1. This revisional application is at the instance of a guardian appointed under the Guardians and Wards Act and is directedagainst Order No. 13 dated January 16, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Asansol in Act VIII Case No. 1 of 2001/13 of 2001 thereby rejecting an application filed by the petitioner praying for permission to give the minor in adoption to the opposite parties.
2. There is no dispute that the present petitioner is the paternal grandfather of the minor and after the death of both the parents of the minor, on the application of the present petitioner under Section 8 read with Section 10 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, he was appointed as guardian.
3. The, aforesaid application for guardianship was filed by the petitioner in the Court of learned District Judge, Burdwan thereby giving rise to Act VIII Case No. 12 of 2001 which on transfer to the Court of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Asansol was re-numbered as Act VIII Case No. 1 of 2001.
4. Subsequent to the aforesaid order declaring the petitioner as guardian, he filed an application before the said Fast Track Court, Asansol for permitting him to give the minor for adoption to the opposite parties.
5. It may not be out of place to mention here that the opposite party No. 1 is the niece of the petitioner's wife and opposite party No, 2 is her husband and they have no issue.
6. By the order impugned in this application, the learned Court below has rejected such application only on the ground that such permission for adoption can be granted by the learned District Judge, in view of the provisions contained in Section 9 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
7. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner has come up with the instant revisional application.
8. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has criticized the aforesaid order on the ground that the learned trial Judge having appointed the petitioner as guardian under the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, such proceedings should be deemed to be continuing till the attainment of majority of the said minor. According to Mr. Mukherjee, Section 4A of the Guardians and Wards Act authorizes the learned Additional District Judge to pass any appropriate order inasmuch as by virtue of the provisions contained in the said section, the proceedings were transferred to him. Mr. Mukherjee contends that Court below should be deemed to be a District Judge for the purpose of giving consent under Section 9 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
9. None appears on behalf of the opposite parties inspite of service.
10. After hearing Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner and after going through the provisions contained in Guardian and Wards Act as well as the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, I find that under Section 9 of the latter Act, a Court guardian of a minor can give consent for taking the child in adoption only after prior approval of the Court as mentioned in the latter Act. Section 9 specifically states that the Court which Is capable of granting such prior permission is City Civil Court or a District Court within the local limit of whose jurisdiction the child to be adopted ordinarily resides. Therefore, although by virtue of the power conferred under Section 4A of the Guardians and Wards Act, proceedings under the said Act can be transferred to Subordinate Judicial Officers, there is no such corresponding provision in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. In my view, it is rightly pointed out by the learned trial Judge that being a Court for the purpose of Guardians and Wards Act, such Court can pass all necessary order as regards welfare of the minor including removal of the guardian but such a Court is not competent to grant permission to a Court-guardian to give consent for giving the child in adoption. Therefore, it is the duty of the Court-guardian to apply before the learned District Court under Section 9 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for such permission. It is needless to mention that once such permission is accorded by such Court, such order may constitute a valid ground for removal of the present petitioner as mentioned in Section 39(j) of the Guardians and Wards Act; but an application for permission to give consent in adoption should be filed by the Court-guardian before the learned District Judge or the City Civil Court, as the case may be by way of independent proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
11. In this connection although Mr. Mukherjee relied upon a Division Bench decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of 'In the matter of: Canara Bank Relief and Welfare Society and Others' reported in : AIR1991Kant6 , after going through the said decision I find that the principles laid down therein rather go against his client. In the said case the question was whether a similar application under Section 9(4) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act was entertainable by a Family Court within the meaning of the Family Court Act. The Division Bench answered the question in negative holding that only a District Court or a City Civil Court can entertain such prayer as the case does not come under any of the instances mentioned in Section 7 of the Family Court Act. It may not be out of place to mention here that proceedings under Guardians and Wards Act come within the purview of the said Act. Thus, an application under Section 9(4) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act is no part of proceedings under Guardian and Wards Act.
I therefore find that there is no illegality or material irregularity in the order impugned justifying interference. The revisional application is thus dismissed. I make it clear that I have not gone in the merit of the prayer for giving consent.
No costs.