Karnataka High Court
Ms.Ruhinaaz Khanum vs Nil on 14 November, 2024
-1-
MFA No.2869 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2869 OF 2024 (GW)
BETWEEN:
MS.RUHINAAZ KHANUM,
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,
(MINOR),
D/O AKRAMULLA KHAN,
RESIDING AT NO.39/1,
1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS,
NEAR SIDDIQUA MASJID,
GANGONDANAHALLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH,
BENGALURU - 560 039.
REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
SRI. AKRAMULLA KHAN.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR C. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NIL
...RESPONDENT
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 47(e) OF GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.04.2024 PASSED ON G
AND WC NO.414/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE PETITIONER FILED U/S 8,9,10 OF GUARDIAN
AND WARDS ACT, 1890 READ WITH SECTION 7 OF FAMILY
COURTS ACT.
-2-
MFA No.2869 of 2024
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL HAVING
BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 24.10.2024
AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS
DAY, UMESH M. ADIGA J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)
This appeal is by proposed guardian of the ward Ms.
Ruhinaaz Khanum, aged about 15 years (for short ' Ward')
challenging the correctness of the orders passed by the
learned II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Bengaluru, in G&WC.No.414/2023 dated 02.04.2024.
2. Facts in brief of the case are that the proposed
guardian Akramulla Khan has three children. Out of them,
the ward is the eldest daughter. She was born on
23.03.2008 and ward has completed the age of 16 years.
Presently ward is studying in PUC. The proposed guardian
of the ward had purchased the property bearing site
No.39/1, at Gangondanahalli, Bengaluru was standing in
the name of the ward. It was an open site. The proposed
guardian had constructed building in the said property and
he has been residing in the said house along with his
family members. It is further case of the appellant that
now he is intending to sell the said property for the benefit
of the ward that is for her future education and
maintenance, since the proposed guardian is unable to do
any work due to post polio paralytic of right leg.
3. According to the submission of proposed
guardian, the proposed guardian agreed to sell the
property standing in the name of the ward at appropriate
market price and out of the sale consideration, he would
purchase another property in her name. He entered into
an agreement of sale to purchase another property worth
Rs.31,50,000/- and paid advance amount of Rs.6,50,000/-
to the owner of the said property. With these reasons, he
prayed to appoint him as a guardian to the person and
property of the ward.
4. The learned trial Judge held enquiry. The
proposed guardian examined PW-1 and 2 and got marked
Exs.P1 to P16.
5. After hearing the matter, the learned trial Judge
by impugned order dated 02.04.2024 appointed the
proposed guardian as guardian of her person and denied
of her property.
6. We have heard the arguments of learned
counsel appearing for the appellant.
7. We have interacted with the ward and her
natural parents. The proposed guardian during interaction
stated that he is father of ward and has been suffering
from some health issues; and unable to do any work.
Ward is now studying in PUC. He produced documents in
this regard. For education expenses such as payment of
fees and other expenses, he has no sufficient income,
therefore in the interest of minor he intended to sell the
property and utilize the amount for welfare of guardian.
He has further stated that he intends to purchase another
property by utilizing the sale proceeds in the name of the
ward. He entered into an agreement of sale in this regard.
If in any case, it is not possible to purchase the property,
he will deposit some amount in her name in fixed deposit.
8. PW-2 is mother of ward during our interaction
has corraborated the statement made by PW-1. On
enquiry with ward, she has stated that she has been
under care and custody of proposed guardian, who is her
natural father and he has been looking after her properly
and taking care of her education. She has further stated
that he is suffering from ill-health and unable to do any
work. The said property was acquired by him in her
name. He intends to sell it for her benefit and welfare and
submits that he may be appointed as her guardian. She
also stated that she has been studying in P.U.C.
On perusal of the material placed before us, it
appears that guardian had acquired the property in the
name of the ward. We do not find any reasons to reject
the claim of the proposed guardian. He intends to sell the
property for the benefit of the ward. The natural guardian
of the ward is unable to spend for the education of the
ward since he cannot earn due to health issue. The ward
and her guardian are residing in Bengaluru and the
expenses of education as well as maintenance would
normally be on the higher side. If he is unable to pay the
college fees or look after her future education then it may
cause irreparable loss or hardship to the ward. It may
take about two years for the ward to attain age of
majority. Till that time, she cannot postpone her education
due to lack of funds. Therefore, the reasons assigned by
learned trial Judge in rejecting to appoint him as guardian
of ward of her property are not tenable.
9. The proposed guardian is intending to sell the
property standing in the name of ward and by utilising
part of amount of sale consideration he is intending to
purchase the property or make fixed deposit in her name
in Bank. The proposed guardian of the ward is in the
interest and welfare of the ward. We find no reasons to
reject the said proposal or deny to appoint him as
guardian of ward of her property also. Hence, interference
in the impugned order is required.
10. For the above said reasons, we pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The order dated 02.04.2024 passed by
the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Bengaluru is modified.
Sri. Abramullah Khan, being the natural
father of ward - Ms. Ruhinaaz Khanum is
appointed as her guardian of her person and
property.
Guardian of the ward is permitted to sell
the property standing in the name of ward
bearing site No.39/1, Gangondanahalli,
Bengaluru at highest market value, keeping in
mind the interest of the ward.
He shall either purchase the property in
the name of the ward as per the agreement
dated 16.10.2023 or deposit the part of the
sale consideration in a fixed deposit, in the
name of ward in any of the Nationalized Bank
for a period of 3 years, if he is unable to
purchase the property in her name.
He is also directed to submit the copy of
the following documents within 60 days from
the sale of property standing in the name of the
ward.
(i) Copy of sale deed executed on behalf
of the ward.
(ii) Copy of sale deed of property
purchased in the name of ward or Fixed Deposit
Receipt.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
AG
