Delhi District Court
Objector Sh. Krishan Manchanda Filed An vs Unknown on 16 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.
PC No. 08/13
Jagdish Lal
vs.
State & Others
ORDER
16.05.2016
1. Objector Sh. Krishan Manchanda filed an application under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC for appointment of guardian/next friend of respondent no.3 Ms. Pooja Pahuja/Manchanda, who is stated to be mentally challenged woman.
2. Another application filed by Sh. Sanjay Sindhani for appointment of guardian/next friend of respondent no.3 Ms.Pooja Pahuja, as mother Smt. Subhagwanti Pahuja of respondent no.3 Ms. Pooja Pahuja was earlier respondent no.2 in the main petition but unfortunately died on 16.08.2015. She left a Will, in which applicant is one of the named person who has to lookafter the respondent no.3 Ms. Pooja Pahuja being the close relative and next friend to her since childhood.
3. Objector Sh. Krishan Manchanda stated in the application that he is the legally wedded husband of respondent no.3 Ms. Pooja Pahuja, who is mentally retarded PC NO. 8/13 Page No. 1/6 and not able to lookafter herself especially after the death of respondent no.2 Smt. Subhagwanti Pahuja and only Objector Sh. Krishan Manchanda can lookafter and care, therefore, he may be appointed as guardian/next frient in the prsent Probate petition.
4. The petitioner contested the application and filed the detailed reply. In the preliminary objections, it is stated that the Objector has no locus-standi to file the present application as the marriage between Sh. Krishan Manchanda and Ms. Pooja Pahuja - respondent no.3 has already been dissolved as the matter was settled in the Mediation Centre. It is stated that Objector Sh. Krishan Manchanda in order to fulfill his evil designs/greed to grab the property left behind by the parents of respondent no.3 Ms. Pooja Pahuja, filed the present application.
5. It is further stated that as per Memorandum of Understanding dated 28.12.2011, the marriage was solemnized with the understanding that after marriage Sh. Krishan Manchanda - Objector shall live with his wife Ms. Pooja Pahuja at her parental house at Ashok Nagar, New Delhi. It was further settled that the Objector shall be settled in the business of the father of Ms. Pooja Pahuja at D-5, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi.
6. The Objector since starting extorting the money from the parents of his wife Ms. Pooja. On behalf of respondent. On behalf of respondent no.3 Ms. Pooja, a civil suit was filed in the year 2013 by her mother Smt. PC NO. 8/13 Page No. 2/6 Subhagwanti Pahuja - respondent no.2 being guardian and next friend under Section 12 and 13 of HMA, which is still pending before Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court Sh. Yashant Kumar.
7. Sh. Krishan Manchanda/Objector compromised the above said matter and agreed to dissolve the marriage. As per settlement, the mother of Ms. Pooja Pahuja was required to pay Rs.48 lacs in two installments towards settlement of claim of Sh. Krishan Manchanda as Gharjamai. As per settlement, Rs.5 lacs have already been paid to Objector Sh. Krishan Manchanda. However, now the greed has become more of the Objector, therefore, present application is filed which is liable to be dismissed. On merits all the facts denied. It is stated that Objector has no intention for the welfare of the respondent no.3 but he wishes to grab all the properties left by his in-laws i.e. the parents of Ms. Pooja Pahuja. Therefore, his application is liable to be dismissed.
8. In the application of Sh. Sanjay Sindhani, stated that respondent no.3 always remain in custody and care of respondent no.2 Smt. Subhagwanti Pahuja/ mother till the death of respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 had executed a Will dated 20.12.2012, which was duly registered. Respondent no.2 Smt. Subhagwanti Pahuja since deceased has appointed three persons, namely, Sh. Om Parkash S/o Sh. Jagdish Lal, Sh. Sanjay Sindhani S/o Late Sh. Bhagwan Dass Dindhani and Sh. Ram Chander Kukreja S/o Late Sh. Roop Chand Kukreja, for the care and custody of respondent no.3 Ms. Pooja Pahuja.
PC NO. 8/13 Page No. 3/69. Objector Sh. Krishan Manchanda replied to the application of Sh. Sanjay Sindhani and taken preliminary objections that the application is not maintainable. It is stated that the law is well settled that husband act as a legal guardian of his legally wedded wife. Therefore, relative of Ms.Pooja Pahuja are of not good choice for appointment of legal guardian. On merits, all the averments are denied. It is stated that all the three relatives who are alleged to be named by respondent no.2 Smt. Subhagwanti Pahuja, should not be allowed to become legal guardian/next friend of the petitioner. Therefore, application be dismissed.
10. I have heard Sh. O.P. Wadhwa, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, Sh. Rajiv Raheja, Ld. Counsel for the objector Sh. Krishan Manchanda and Sh. K.C. Gandhi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant Sh. Sanjay Sindhani.
11. Before appreciating and considering respective submission of all the Ld. Counsels, it is essential to spell out the brief facts. The Probate Petition under Section 276/222 of the Indian Succession Act filed by the petitioner Sh. Jagdish Lal (executor) in respect of letter of administration for the estate of deceased Sh. Dhalu Ram Pahuja as per last Will dated 03.10.1986. There were two respondents, one Smt. Subhagwanti Pahuja, wife and another Ms. Pooja Pahuja, mentally retarded daughter. During the pendency of petition, Smt. Subhagwanti Pahuja was appointed as guardian/ next friend under Order 32 CPC for respondent no.3 Smt. Pooja Pahuja but unfortunately she died on 16.08.2015. She also left a Will, which is referred by applicant Sh. Sanjay Sindhani PC NO. 8/13 Page No. 4/6 in his application. Now the only legal heir left is Ms.Pooja Pahuja, who is mentally challenged woman.
12. I have gone through the record. Sh. Krishan Manchanda filed objections being the husband of respondent no.3 and same are pending for disposal. As per record, there was memorandum of understanding dated 28.12.2011, whereby Objector Sh. Krishan Manchanda married to respondent no.3 Ms. Pooja Pahuja. A petition under HMA was filed by respondent no.3 through her mother deceased respondent no.2 Smt. Subhagwanti Pahuja, which is still pending before Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Sh.Yashwant Kumar. The record further shows that before Delhi Mediation Centere, Sh. Krishan Manchanda and Ms. Pooja Pahuja entered into a settlement on 25.11.2013. As per settlement, the mother of the respondent no.3 has to pay Rs.48 lacs in three installments to Objector Sh. Krishan Manchanda.
13. The record establishes that the relation between Objector Sh. Krishan Manchanda and respondent no.3 Ms. Pooja Pahuja not remained smooth or between the family relations were not sailed as per Memorandum of Understanding dated 28.12.2011. Therefore, immediately matrimonial petition filed by Ms. Pooja Pahuja. In these peculiar and special circumstances, a husband cannot be appointed as guardian or next friend to Ms. Pooja Pahuja in the present petition. Whereas mother of respondent no.3 deceased Smt.Subhagwanti Pahuja executed a Will and named the persons to lookafter her daughter and the present applicant Sh. Sanjay Sindhani as one of them.
PC NO. 8/13 Page No. 5/614. In my considered opinion, applicant Sh. Sanjay Sindhani is the person who can lookafter and care of respondent no.3 Ms. Pooja Pahuja and represent her in the present probate case.
15. On the basis of above observation and discussion, the application of Objector Sh. Krishan Manchanda is dismissed whereas application of Sh. Sanjay Sindhani is allowed, who is appointed as guardian/next friend to represent respondent no.3 Ms. Pooja Pahuja in the present probate proceedings. Therefore, his application is allowed.
Announced in the open court today the 16th day of May, 2016.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 16.05.2016 PC NO. 8/13 Page No. 6/6