N. N. Ganguly, J. - (1.) -This civil revision is directed against the order dated 17-9-90 passed by the District Judge. Jhansi, refusing to drop the proceedings in case in relation to the guardianship of person and property of the minor initiated under the provisions of the Guardianship and Wards Act.
(2.) THE ground raised by the applicant to show that the regular Civil Court ceased to have jurisdiction to proceed with the case under the provisions of the Guardia ship and Wards Act. it is stated that by creation of Family Court under the Judgeship ousted the jurisdiction of Civil Court to proceed under the Guardianship and Wards Act. It was stated that very appointment of Guardian for person and property of minor passed in 1988 under the Guardianship and Wards Act was without jurisdiction and the application and proceedings for removal of Guardian pending before the Court of District Judge was not maintainable. The learned counsel for the applicant pointed out provisions of Sec. 7 (g) of Family Courts Act and pleaded that after creation of Family Court, the jurisdiction of Civil Court under Guardianship and Wards Act is ousted. The provision of Sec. 7 (g) of the Family Court Act is quoted as under :- "7 (g) : a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor". The submission of the applicant's counsel is that Section 7 (g) of Family Courts Act clearly bars jurisdiction with respect to suit or proceedings in relation to person or custody or access to any minor The argument that since after creation of Family Court in the District, when jurisdiction in respect to guardianship of person or the custody or access to the minor is ousted, the proceedings for the guardianship of property of the minor is also ousted. I am afraid that the interpretation of Sec 7 (g) of the Family Courts Act as suggested cannot be accepted.
(3.) IT may be noted that this Court was pleased to direct the applicant's counsel to serve the respondent outside the Court, so that the respondent may be given opportunity and the civil revision itself may be finally decided. The respondent was served and a counter affidavit was filed and rejoinder exchanged. The Civil revision is, thus, finally being disposed of. It would be necessary to give brief facts of the case as disclosed by the respondent in her counter-affidavit The minor is the son of Vinay Chhabra, who died in 1987 in a Car accident. The minor was only 9 months old. The father of the minor and the applicant were real brothers. The two brothers owned huge properties and business of transporters, bus service, shops, cash deposits of 10 lacs etc. After the death of Vinay Chbabra, the minor became legal heir and successor to assets, business and properties in share of his father by devolution It is said that the applicant and other partners in order to grab the share and properties of the minor, obtained signatures of the mother of the minor by deception. They utilised the blank signed papers for setting up a case that the minors' mother Smt. savita Chhabra wanted to remarry and the applicant moved application for appointment as Guardian and properties of the minor. The earned District Judge appointed the applicant as Guardian of person and property of minor by order dated 9-8-1988. The applicant was squahdering the share of minors' property, hence minor's mother- respondent moved application for removal of applicant as Guardian of minors person and property. Sent. Savita Chhabra with minor escaped from Kanpur and is staying at Allahabad. The evil designs of the app'icant was not succeeding and the court of District Judge was pleased to direct that the applicant should file full and complete original account of all property in which minor has share. The applicant in order to delay and avoid compliance of the Court's order raised the objection about jurisdiction of the Civil Court and after the rejection of the objection, the present revision.;