Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)(Kode) Atchayya vs Kosaraju Narahari on 27 August, 1928
3. It is argued next that a de jure guardian not proved at one time to have had the physical care or custody of the girl, is not entitled to apply under Section 25 of the Act complaining of removal and asking for return of the ward to the applicant's custody. There again the same ruling is in point and adverse to the appellant in as much as it holds that the section is not limited in its operation to the power of the Court to enforce the guardian's right only in extreme cases of an actual leaving or removal of the ward from the guardian. As ruled by a Bench of this Court in Atchayya v. Kosaraju Narahari, A. I. E. (16) 1929 Mad 81 : (120 I. C. 747) the refusal by a person to deliver the child to its natural guardian when asked to do so by the latter amounts in effect to a removal from his custody and be can therefore apply under Section 25 of the Act.
S. Rama Iyer vs K.V. Nataraja Iyer on 28 November, 1947
After all, even assuming that a minor has a will of his own which must be respected in such a matter, the preference expressed by a boy or girl of 13 or 14 is not, as pointed but in S. Rama Iyer v. K.V. Nataraja, Iyer, 1948 1-M. L. J. 125 : (A.I.R. (35) 1948 Mad. 294) entitled to much or any weight at all, especially where, as found, here, the minor's attitude is not a natural, bona fide, and intelligent one, but one induced by the unwholesome persuations of her paternal aunt and her husband. I accordingly dismiss this civil miscellaneous appeal with costs.
Noshirwan Manekshaw Nanavati vs Sharoshbanu Noshirwan Nanavati on 14 December, 1933
2. It is argued for the appellant that the mother does not satisfy the definition of "guardian" in Section 4, Sub-section (2), Guardians and Wards Act and that her petition under Section 25 of the Act is not therefore maintainable. The point made is that she is not a person in truth and in fact having the care of the person of the minor because it is the paternal aunt and her husband that are actually having such care. It is also said that she is not a guardian appointed or declared as such. I do not agree. Noshirwan v. Sharoshbanu, A. I. R. (21) 1934 Bom. 311 : (58 Bom. 724) supports my view. It is there held that the word "guardian" in the section is used in a wide sense and does not necessarily mean a guardian duly appointed or declared by the Court but includes a natural guardian or even a de facto guardian.
Section 4 in The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890
The Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929
1