SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Pooja Dhimar vs Avinash Dhimar on 13 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Pooja Dhimar vs Avinash Dhimar on 13 February, 2024

Author: Sheel Nagu

Bench: Sheel Nagu

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 13 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 2895 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
SMT. POOJA DHIMAR W/O LATE SUNIL DHIMAR, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O
VILLAGE KOTMA POLICE STATION AND TEHSIL
SOHAGPUR DISTRICT SHAHDOL (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)

…..PETITIONER
(BY SHRI A. USMANI-ADVOCATE )

AND
1. AVIN ASH DHIMAR S/O NOT MENTION, AGED
ABOUT 7 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR
CHILDREN OF LATE SUNIL DHIMAR THROUGH
GAURDIAN GRANDMOTHER INDRAVATI
DHIMAR WIDOW OF LATE RAJKUMAR DHIMAR
AGE 68 R/O VILLAGE KOTMA POLICE STATION
AND TEHSIL SOHAGPUR DISTRICT SHAHDOL
(M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. UNNATI DHIMAR(MINOR) D/O LATE SUNIL
DHIMAR, AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
MINOR THROUGH GUARDIAN GRANDMOTHER
INDRAVATI DHIMAR WIDOW OF LATE
RAJKUMAR DHIMAR AGE ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O
VILLAGE KOTMA, PS AND TEHSIL SOHAGPUR,
DISTRICT SHAHDOL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. COLLECTOR, THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. AND OTHERS TO WHOM IT IS RELATED S/O NIL
N.A. (MADHYA PRADESH)

…..RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETI TIWARI
Signing time: 2/17/2024
11:23:12 AM
2
(BY SHRI AMIT KUMAR SHARMA-G.A. )

This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Sheel Nagu
passed the following:
ORDER

This miscellaneous appeal has been filed assailing the final order
dated 4.4.2022 in MJC No.4/2021 by which the claim of appellant/mother for
alienating property standing in the name of her children aged about nine and five
years, has been declined by rendering a finding that there is no pressing need
shown by appellant/ mother which can satisfy the requirements of
Section 8 of
the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 read with
Section 29 of the
Guardian and Wards Act.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, mother and
perused the record.

3. A bare perusal of application under Section 8 of 1956 Act and the
record of trial court reveals that no material or evidence was produced by the
appellant in support of the necessity for alienating property of minors.

4. An application under Section 8 and the supportive deposition of
appellant/mother reveals omnibus assertion that children are studying in english
medium school and thus appellant/mother needs money to persue academic
careers of both the children. It is also mentioned in the application that land in
question which is entered in the name of both children is subjected to
encroachment whereas the said averment is not supportive by her deposition or
material.

5. One of the objects behind the provision enabling a natural
guardian to alienate property of minor, is to ensure that alienation is backed by
compelling reasons and for achieving the sole object of welfare of the child.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETI TIWARI
Signing time: 2/17/2024
11:23:12 AM
3

Thus, the guardian is obliged to produce cogent evidence in support of
compelling need for alienating property standing in the name of minor. The
omnibus cause raised by the appellant/mother falls desperately short of this
requirement.

6. However, without commenting upon merits of the matter, only to
ensure that interest of minor is not jeopardized, this Court deems it appropriate
to remand the matter to the trial court to afford opportunity to appellant/mother
to produce cogent evidence to satisfy pressing need to alienate property of
minors.

7. In view of above discussion, this Court allows the present appeal
with the following directions:

(i) The impugned order dated 4.4.2022 passed in MJC No.4/2021
stands set aside.

(ii) The learned trial judge is requested to afford opportunity to
appellant to produce cogent evidence to establish pressing need for alienating
the property of minor and thereafter conduct and conclude the trial as
expeditiously as possible but in accordance with law.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to
costs.

(SHEEL NAGU) (VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE JUDGE
P/-

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETI TIWARI
Signing time: 2/17/2024
11:23:12 AM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation