P L D 1962 (W (PLP)

Date of hearing : 12th December, 1961. This is an appeal in a guardianship case. The facts are that two applications were put in, one by the father Farman Ali and the other by Mst. Khanamji, the mother, for the appointment of the guardian of Abdul Khalik, their minor son, both as regards his person and his property. The parties leveled allegations of immorality against each other. The learned Guardian Judge framed the following issues: ‑ (1) Was the minor removed from the custody of the applicant by respondent ? (O. P. A.) (2) Is it for the welfare of the minor that his custody should be restored to the applicant ? (3) Is it for the welfare of the minor that a guardian of his person and property be appointed ? (4) Is the applicant a fit person to be appointed a guardian of the property of the minor ? (5) Is the respondent a fit person to be appointed a guardian of the person and property of the minor ? (6) Relief.

2. The learned Guardian Judge passed the following order as regards the person of the minor. Mst. Khanamji was asked to get the boy admitted into a boarding house at her own expense within two months of the order failing which the custody was to be restored to the father, who will be at liberty to bring up the minor and educate him in his own way. Till the minor stays in the boarding house his father will be entitled to see him off and on with the permission of the head of the Institution. On the termination of his stay in the boarding house, the custody is to be reverted to the father. As regards the property, the father was held to be a better person for appointment as the guardian, and consequently he was appointed as such. He was directed to furnish a bond on the prescribed form as required by section 34 of the Guardians and Wards Act with one surety in the sum of Rs. 8,000 by the 29th of June 1960. He was also directed to deliver the Court within six months, a statement of immovable property belonging to the ward, of the money and other movable property which he might receive on his behalf, by the date of delivering the statement and of the debts due on that date to or from the ward. He was also directed to pay into the Court in the ward's account any money that may belong to the ward and that may fall into his hands. The amount of Rs. 6,000 belonging to the ward lying with the Land Acquisition Collector was ordered to be deposited with the bank in the minor's account. Farman Ali, the father, is satisfied with this order, but Mst. Khanamji, the mother, has challenged it. In the grounds of appeal, the correctness of the order both as regards the person as well as the property was challenged, but at the time of the arguments, the learned counsel stated at the Bar that his client had no objection to the order as regards the person of the minor, but he contested the order as regards the appointment of the respondent as the guardian of the property of the minor.

3. The learned counsel contended that the respondent had no property and consequently the property of the minor would not be safe in his hands. He has urged that the mother should be appointed the guardian of the property of the minor or in the alternative no guardian of the property need be appointed. In support of the latter contention, the learned counsel has cited Mst. Gangu and another v. Mst. Kongshi (A I R 1923 Nag. 305) Khuda Bakhsh v. Mathra Das and others (62 P R), Mst. Rashida Begum v. Shahab Din and others (P L D 1960 Lah. 1142) and Mst. Hayat Khatun and others v. Mst. Sharam Khatun and others (93 P R 1914). I am afraid none of these authorities is applicable to the facts of the present case. In the first two cases, the father was dead and it was held that the mother was a proper person to manage the property of the minor. In the Nagpur case, it was also held that even if the mother was proved to be immoral, it was no ground to deprive her from the management of the property of the minor. In P L D 1960 Lah. 1142 there is a general observation that the Courts before appointing a guardian should come to a conclusion whether the appointment of a guardian was at all called for. The dispute was not between a father and a mother, as it is in the present case. I think that if the dispute is between the parents of a minor, it is but desirable that the Court should appoint a proper person to be the guardian of the property. 93 A Punjab Record 1914 lays down that the Court should not interfere with family affairs which are satisfactory. The facts were that a person died leaving a sister, two widows and one son by each, aged 6 and 3 years respectively, and two minor daughters. He left also some 200 bighas of land recorded after his death as owned by the two sons. The widows were on good terms and of the peasant class, quite well able to look after the interests of their own children. The sister applied to be appointed as guardian of both the person and property of all the four children. A brother of the second husband of one of the wives also applied for appointment as a guardian. The High Court held that there was no reason to inter fere in the previous arrangements as the mothers were competent to look after the affairs in a satisfactory manner. Farman Ali respondent transferred a house in the name of the minor by means of a registered deed 'A‑3' on the 7th of May 196

0. He purchased some land from Muhammad in the name of other minor by means of a registered‑deed `A‑1', dated the 26th of January 1954. On the record of this case, it is not shown that there was any other property belonging to the minor. May be there is some but Khanamji, the appellant has placed no information on the record to prove that she ever transferred any property in the name of the minor. She, no doubt, owns property but she may or may not transfer it to her son. If she does not alienate it to some one else the minor might inherit it. The anxiety of the respondent for being appointed as guardian of the property of the minor is proper, because he has been responsible in giving property to the minor. The learned counsel has contended that Mst. Khanamji had stated that the land that was purchased from Muhammad was purchased out of the money supplied by her. Her evidence is contradicted by the statement of Muhammad, the vendor, who had stated that the price was paid to him by Farman Ali respondent. The Guardian Judge has taken good care to see that the respondent does not in any way misuse the money of the minor that might come into his hands as a guardian of the property. I consider that in all the circumstances of the case, the learned Guardian Judge was quite right in appointing the respondent as the guardian) of the property of the minor. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs. K. B. A. Appeal dismissed.