In an Appeal under section 11 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 the High Court of Orissa was of the opinion that keeping the impugned property idle with the appellant without any income from it, would be beneficial for none, hence it was directed to be utilized in a manner for the welfare of the minors and permission was given under section 11.
Brief Facts:
The appeal was filed against the order dated 25th January 2023 passed by the learned District Judge, whereby an application under section 11 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 was dismissed.
The appellant is the mother and guardian of two minor children. Some land was purchased by the deceased husband of the appellant and after his death, the land was recorded in the name of the appellant and her two minor children. It has been difficult for the appellant to maintain her children after the untimely death of her husband and that is why she filed an application under Section 11 of the Guardians and Wards Act to sell the case land for the welfare of the children and her maintenance. The court below dismissed her application as it was noted that her children were studying at DPS Kalinga and there was no legal necessity to alienate minors’ share of the case land.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellant has contended that before the death of her husband, the minor children were prosecuting their study at DPS Kalinga and as a mother, it was her duty to see that the children should get a better education. Further, it has been submitted that the appellant does not have any independent source of income and only because her children are studying at DPS Kalinga, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner had sufficient means of livelihood and that there is no legal necessity to alienate the case land. The case of Jageet Kaur Vs. State and the case of Naveetha Vs. Mohamed Nahub Basha was referred by the Appellants. And it was contended that the appellant should be permitted to alienate the case land.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court was of the opinion that keeping the property idle with the Appellant without any income therefrom, will be beneficial for none. It should be utilized in a manner that will be for the welfare of the minors and also meet the legal necessities of the Appellant
The Decision of the Court:
The appeal was allowed
Case Title: Mamata Paramaguru v. Collector, Khordha
Coram: Justice K.R. Mohapatra
Case No.: GUAP No.2 of 2023
Advocates for the Petitioners: Mr. Dipti Ranjan Bhokta, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Baibaswata Panigrahi, Additional Standing Counsel
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
