VIMLA DEVI Vs. MAYA DEVI
LAWS(RAJ)-1980-12-1
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on December 18,1980

VIMLA DEVI Appellant
VERSUS
MAYA DEVI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SMT.KAMLESH V. SHRI RAM PAUL [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMAN V. GANGA RAM [REFERRED TO]
NAZIR BEGUM V. GHULA QADIR KHAN [REFERRED TO]
MST. NAZIR BEGUM V. GHULAM QADIR [REFERRED TO]
LALITA TWALF V. PARAMATMA PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
VIMLABAI V. BABURAO [REFERRED TO]
BHOLA NATH V. SHARDA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
JHALA HARPALSINGH V. ARUNKUNVAR [REFERRED TO]
HARBANS SINGH V. VIDYA WANTI [REFERRED TO]
JAMUNA PRASAD V. MST. PANNA [REFERRED TO]
FIROZA BEGUM V. AKHTARUDDIN LASKAR [REFERRED TO]
VIRBALA WIFE OF SHAH HARICHAND RATANCHAND VS. SHAH HARICHAND RATANCHAND [REFERRED TO]
HARICHAND RATANCHAND VS. VIRBALA [REFERRED TO]
RAM SARUP VS. CHIMMAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA KISHORE VS. HEMLATA GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
KAMLA VS. BHANU MAL [REFERRED TO]
SARADA NAYAR VS. VAYANKARA AMMA [REFERRED TO]
KESHAWANAND GUPTA VS. AFROZA BEGUM [REFERRED TO]
TILAK RAJ KAPOOR VS. ASHA KAPOOR [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

KONDUPARTHI VS. RAMAVARAPU [LAWS(ORI)-1988-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
TARA DEVI VS. CHANDAN MAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-2-115] [REFERRED TO]
RUCHI MAJOO VS. SANJEEV MAJOO [LAWS(SC)-2011-5-76] [REFERRED TO]
TUSHIT NAROTTAM MAPARA VS. AVANTI TUSHIT MAPARA [LAWS(GJH)-2021-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
WAZID ALI VS. RUBIANA BANO [LAWS(RAJ)-2007-11-20] [REFERRED TO]
SAMIULLA SAHEB VS. MOHAMMED SAMEER [LAWS(KAR)-2024-4-72] [REFERRED TO]
JASMEET KAUR VS. NAVTEJ SINGH (DELHI)(D.B.) [LAWS(DLH)-2017-9-95] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP KR. BEHERA VS. PUSPANJALI BEHERA [LAWS(ORI)-2015-5-28] [REFERRED TO]
SOBHAN KODALI VS. LAHARI SAKHAMURI [LAWS(APH)-2018-2-9] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.K.Mal Lodha, J. - (1.)This appeal under Section 47 (b) of the Guardians and Wards Act (No. VIII of 1890) (for short 'the Act' hereafter) is directed against the order dated October 4, 1978 of the learned District Judge, Bhilwara, by which, he directed return of the application under Sections 10 and 25 of the Act to the appellant, which was filed on January 3, 1975.
(2.)The case of the appellant is that she moved an application under Sections 10 and 25 of the Act on January 3, 1975 before the learned District Judge, Bhilwara that she may be appointed guardian of the person and property of Sushree Meena, who is the minor daughter of her son late Sushil Kumar and that she may be returned to her custody from Smt. Maya Devi (respondent No. 1). It has been stated that Shri Sushil Kumar and Smt. Maya Devi were married on July 15, 1972. Out of this wedlock, Sushree Meena was born on April 20, 1973. It is said that when Sushree Meena was only one month old, Smt. Mayadevi left her matrimonial home and went to her parents' house at Bandikui. The relations between Sushilkumar and Smt. Maya Devi from the very inception of the marriage were unhappy. It has further been stated that after Smt. Maya Devi had left her matrimonial home, Shri Sushil Kumar committed suicide by drowning himself into a well on June 25, 1973. Thereafter, on July 16, 1974, Smt. Maya Devi contracted the second marriage with one Rajni Kant Pant at Jaipur and started living with him at Jaipur. It had also been stated that after contracting the second marriage Sushree Meena was left with Virendra Kumar (maternal uncle), Kapil Dev Vashist (maternal grand-father) and Smt. Sushila (wife of maternal uncle of Shri Virendra Kumar) (respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively in this appeal). Shri Sushil Kumar was employed in the service as Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department (B. & R.), Government of Rajasthan and had left the Provident Fund amount, arrears of salary and gratuity, all amounting to Rupees 10,000/-, which were in deposit with the Public Works Department (B. & R.) at Bhilwara. The appellant, who is the grand mother of Sushree Meena, filed the application as aforesaid for the appointment of Guardian in respect of person and property of the minor Sushree Meena and for return of her custody as aforesaid.
(3.)In para 14 of the application, it was stated that Sushree Meena was resident of Bhilwara and the property which she is to get is also at Bhilwara and, therefore, the District Judge at Bhilwara has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application for the appointment of the guardian of person and property of Sushree Meena.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.