1 The present application is filed under section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) for a declaration that the petitioners, who are appointed as legal guardian of Yukti by an order passed in proceedings being Case No. FD10C00416 by the High Court of Justice of Principal Registry of the Family Division, London dated 11.9.2012, copies of which are annexed to this application at Annexures B & C respectively. Mr. M.I. Hava, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that by virtue of Section 3 of the Act read with clause 1 of the Letters Patent this Court has inherent jurisdiction to entertain the present application. Mr. M.I. Hava, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Manilal Maganlal V. Kalidas Manilal, reported in 1960(1) GLR Pg.190 and has pointed out this Court that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application for appointment of guardian. This Court in the case of Manilal Maganlal (supra) has observed thus :
A Full Bench of this Court has recently held that the judgments delivered by the High Court of Bombay prior to 1st May 1960 are binding on this Court. It must therefore follow, having regard to the decision of the High Court of Bombay reported in (1941) 43 Bombay Law Reporter 926, that prior to 1st May 1960 the High Court of Bombay had inherent or general jurisdiction to appoint a guardian of the undivided property of a minor who was a member of a joint Hindu family and who was residing in the territories now forming part of the State of Gujarat. Now section 30 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 which has been relied on by Mr. Joshi runs as under :-
30. Jurisdiction of Gujarat High Court :- The High Court of Gujarat shall have, in respect of any part of the territories included in the State of Gujarat, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as, under the law in force immediately before the appointed day, are exercisable in respect of that part of the said territories by the High Court of Bombay .
It is clear from a plain reading of this section that since the High Court of Bombay had inherent or general jurisdiction to appoint a guardian of the undivided property of a minor who was a member of a joint Hindu family and who was residing in the territories now forming part of the State of Gujarat, this Court has the same jurisdiction by virtue of the provisions of this section .
2. Considering the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, this Court vide order dated 11.12.2012 passed an order of giving advertisement for publication of notice as provided under section 11(b) of the Act. The petitioners have filed an affidavit which is placed on record which indicates that such notice has been published in compliance to the order dated 11.12.2012. The petitioners are present in person in the Court as identified by Mr. M.I. Hava and the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are also present and represented by learned Counsel. Respondent no.1 in particular happens to be the biological mother of the child Yukti has no objection if the petitioners, who are mother and father of respondent no.1 Archanaben are declared to be guardian as per the order passed by the Court at England dated 11.9.2012. In addition to this, an affidavit reiterating the same is also placed on record of this petition.
The child Yukti who is aged about three years is also brought to the Court. At the request of the Court Ms. Paurami Sheth, learned Counsel was asked to interact with child Yukti . Considering the tender age of the child and considering the order passed by the Court at England dated 11.9.2012 and more particularly also considering no objection expressed by Ms. Archanaben who is biological mother, the petitioners, Chandubhai Shankarbhai Patel, petitioner no.1 the maternal grand father and Mrs. Kailashben Chandubhai Patel, petitioner no.2 - the maternal grand mother are hereby declared and appointed as guardian in exercise of power under section 7 of the Act.
It is further provided that such an appointment shall be subject to provisions of the Act and more particularly section 26 of the Act. Mr. Hava, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has stated at the bar that both the petitioners are aware and are made aware about the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioners shall be guardians of the person and property of minor child Yukti aged about three years (Date of Birth : 22.10.2009) till she attains majority i.e. 21.10.2030. It is, however, further provided that the petitioners shall file report and also present the child before this Court on completion of three years i.e. in the last month of December 2015 before this Court again. It is further provided that this declaration of appointment of petitioners as guardians shall be subject to further orders on verification of the Court and wish of minor child Yukti .
As can be seen from the order dated 11.9.2012 passed by the Court at England on receipt of sum of 10,000 pounds the same shall be invested in the name of child Yukti along with joint names of both the petitioners in State Bank of India, Naroda Branch, Ahmedabad initially for a period of three years. The petitioners shall be entitled only to quarterly amount of interest received thereon and shall be strictly used only for the welfare of the child Yukti , more particularly maintenance and education etc. It is further provided that the petitioners shall also file accounts for the same along with the report as observed hereinabove. It is further provided that the petitioners as guardian shall not be permitted to use fixed deposit so made for any personal use and shall not pledge or charge or borrow any money on the said fixed deposit receipt and shall not make any investment on the basis of such Fixed Deposit Receipt. The petitioners shall keep regular account of disbursement and shall also keep receipts/vouchers/bills to establish their correctness and shall carry out orders in all directions as may be issued by this Court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The Court appreciates the services rendered by Ms. Paurami Sheth and Ms. Rujal Shah at the request of the Court. Liberty to move this Court for any appropriate direction. Considering the behaviour of child Yukti in the Court with Ms. Sheth, this Court deems it fit to record that at this stage, welfare of the child is with the grand parents i.e. present petitioners. However, this is only a prima facie opinion considering the behaviour of the child Yukti as on date.
Sd/-
(R.M.CHHAYA, J.) M.M.BHATT Page 7 of 7