Patna High Court
Manmohini Dasi vs Hari Prasad Bose And Ors. on 1 April, 1924
Equivalent citations: 81IND. CAS.1045, AIR 1924 PATNA 755
JUDGMENT
1. This is an application made by Manmohini Dasi, the adoptive grandmother of the minor. The applicant is aggrieved by the order of the District Judge of the 23rd January, 1924. The allegations made in the application have been refuted by the natural father of the boy, who has been appointed, guardian of the person of the minor.
2. The tutor guardian opposes this application and though he himself, has filed no affidavit, he relies upon the affidavit filed on behalf of the natural father in which the latter justifies the conduct of the tutor guardian and denies all the accusations made against him by the petitioner.
3. Messrs. S.C. Mitra and S.K. Mitra appear respectively for the natural father and the tutor guardian and Mr. S.M. Mullick appears for the petitioner.
4. This application is due to the perennial dispute between the members of the adoptive family and the natural father of the boy and would not cease until the main appeal is disposed of though it is apprehended that the strained feelings will continue for ever. I observed in my last order of the 8th August, 1923, that the dispute berween the parties was detrimental to the interest of the minor and I directed that the District Judge of Cuttack should make provision for the education of the minor, which is of paramount necessity, by appointing a tutor guardian and keeping the boy in a hostel at Cuttack. My idea was to keep the boy as much as possible away from the unceasing discord and dispute of the aforesaid parties. I did allow in that order opportunities to the adoptive grandmother to meet the boy as often as the circumstances permitted. Regard being had to, her extreme old age I directed that the boy should be taken to the adoptive grandmother's house for her interview when required. In making that direction I had certainly in the view the intention of the law on the subject that every effort should be made to train the boy as much as possible in the traditions of the family to which he belongs, and in the case of adoption in the traditions of the adoptive family of which the boy oecomes a member as if he was born in that family. The State from the earliest times is supposed to be the guardian of the infants and the earliest Regulations gave effect to this principle and made provisions for the custody of minors; and when the State assumes direct custody of an infant it undertakes to bring up the boy in the same manner as his natural father or guardian would have done, that is, in the traditions of the family to which after becoming major he has to revert. The State has made provisions for the care of infants by statutory provisions, such as, the Court of Wards Act and the Guardian and Wards Act. The District Judge under the latter Act exercises this function of the State and becomes the protector and guardian of the infant. He exercises this power by appointing guardians of the persons and properties of infants. The District Judge, in the present case, no doubt, has realised this and taken interest in the affairs of the minor; but while dealing with the complaints against the tutor guardian in his order of the 23rd January, 1924, he seems to have become tired of the Worries given to him by the parties by drawing his attention to the various objectionable acts of the tutor guardian. He does not seem to have disposed of the objections. The complaint against the guardian was that he contravened the directions made by the District Judge in accordance with the order of this Court to see that the boy visits the adoptive grandmother. The occasions for his visits have been specified in the petition. An explanation is offered on behalf of the tutor guardian for not having sent the boy to the adoptive grandmother, as is contained in the affidavit of the natural father, that the boy shows unwillingness to go to the adoptive grandmother. The learned District Judge refers to it in the following words:
The tutor guardian has been appointed with the consent of all concorned; his budget for the minor has been settled again with the consent of all concerned; the visits of the boy to Manmohini were attempted to be regulated again with the consent of all concerned. It is idle to ask me to help the parties if the boy refuses to go to Manmohini; it is ridiculous to ask me to settle whether the boy should or should not have a special mehtar because of his habits. None of the parties before me is able to show me that I am either required or authorised by the law to look into such details...I am not sure that the High Court have authorised me to dismiss the tutor guardian or to do anything to him if the minor refuses to go to Manmohini or insists on a mehtar. I, therefore, decline to act in any of these matters.
5. As observed above, the aforesaid remarks of the District Judge show his having got tired of the matter. But it must not be forgotten that in looking after an infant one has to place himself in the position of his father or guardian, end a guardian or father must expect such worries always to happen for it is a very difficult task to look afteran infant. His habits have to be looked into, his manners have to be shaped, his sentiments have to be reared up, and his little concerns also have to be looked after. No Judge assuming charge of the estate of a minor can grudge the trouble and worry that must necessarily occur so long as the infant is in his charge. No doubt, we realise that the District Judge is over worked and may not find time to look after these petty matters. He has, therefore, to find out means for the proper supervision of the affairs of the minors. A Collector assuming charge of the estate of a minor under the Court of Wards has to look to all the details of the minor concerns; he has to look after his household affairs; provide personal servants including a special "mehtar" if the habits of the minor so require. Still more objectionable is the remark of the learned District Judge that it is idle to ask him to help the parties if the boy refuses to go to Manmohini. The boy was six months old when he was adopted and had been living in the adoptive family up to the death of his adoptive mother in the year 1922, for a period of about 8 or 9 years. The boy had developed affection, for the adoptive grandmother to such an extent that it was difficult for the District Judge to enforce his order to hand over the boy to the natural father, and the scene created in the Court room can better be imagined than described. The object of adoption by Nand Kumar Bose was to affiliate the boy into his family and to dissociate himself completely from his natural father and family. The boy is to become a member of the adoptive family and to own the adoptive father and the adoptive mother as his parents and the relations of the adoptive family as his own relations. All traces of relationship with the natural parents or their relations has to be effaced. It is strange that, as the District Judge remarks, in a short time that the boy had been under the tutor guardian he has forgotten all his affections towards the adoptive grandmother and now expresses unwillingness to go to that lady whose affection for the boy has not ever been doubted. This is not the training that the tutor guardian is expected to give to the boy. He should, as observed above, have reared up sentiments such as the adoptive father wanted to imbibe him with. The District Judge should not encourage any foreign tendencies being developed in the boy; and when such matters are brought to his notice he should see that such sentiments are soon destroyed and not allowed to grow. The boy at this tender age should not be allowed to inhale extraneous habits of thoughts and sentiments. The case of Sunder Moni Devi v. Bangsidhar Patnaik 16 Ind. Crs. 900 : 17 C.L.J. 405 at p. 410 : 18 C.W.N. 160, may be usefully re ferrrd to. It appears that the tutor guardian is not giving him proper training in this direction. He thinks, that he is more concerned, and this is the aspect of the case that has been so firmly advocated by Messrs. Mitter on the other side, with the passing of the boy at the examinations than with his sentiments and character. If the boy is not shaped from now to take his proper position in the adoptive family, after he comes of age he will be totally lost to the family and perhaps he would like to go back to the natural father and that might be the game which the natural father is perhaps, now trying to play. I am not in a position to dispose of the objections seriatim raised in the petition before us. I simply want to clear up the mistaken notion of the learned District Judge as to his own duties in the matter and would leave him to devise means to carry out the spirit of the directions of this Court given in August last. The estate is a solvent one and has got a tolerably decent, income, and it is not impossible to provide for best education to be given to the boy in the true sense of it, so as to develop his mind, body and heart. I have no doubt that the learned District Judge will now impress upon the tutor guardian the desirability of arranging that the boy meets the adoptive grandmother as often.as is necessary. If the interest of the minor so requires, the District Judge has full authority to deal with the tutor guardian and may dismiss him if the circumstances of the case so require, and appoint another suitable person. Certainly, the District Judge is under a wrong impression when he says that he entertains doubts as to his power to dismiss the tutor guardian; but I am far from suggesting, forithe materials before me are not sufficient, that the present-tutor guardian must necessarily be dismissed in the present case. It depends upon the discretion of the learned District Judge. Mr. Mitter, however, says that the presenttutor guardian is willing to carry out the directions given to him by the District Judge in the matter.
6. The application is sent back to the learned District Judge for enquiries into the matter and for disposal.