Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.30 seconds)Section 25 in The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890
(Kode) Atchayya vs Kosaraju Narahari on 27 August, 1928
In (Kode) Atchayya (supra) also, a Division Bench of this Court
after taking note of Section 24 of the Act refers to the judgment of the
Privy Council in Annie Besant v. G. Narayaniah (AIR 1914 PC 41),
reiterates the statutory duty cast upon a parent upon a guardian of ward to
‘look to his support, health and education and such other matters as the
law to which the ward is subject requires’. This view has been reiterated
time and again in subsequent decisions which have also been noticed by
this decision.
Mrs. Annie Besant vs G. Narayaniah on 29 October, 1913
6. It therefore follows that when the guardian of the
person of a ward applied for the custody of the ward he is
only asking the Court to help him to discharge the duty cast
on him by law, with reference to his ward and it is for those
who oppose such an application to make out that the welfare
of the ward will be better served by its being kept out of the
"custody of its guardian and retained in the custody of the
person against whom the application is made. This onus
according to the authorities is especially heavy when the
guardian is the father of the child who as pointed out by
their Lordships of the Privy Council in Beasant's case Annie
Beasant v. Narayaniah (A.I.R.1914 P.C. 41) is both
according to Hindu law and English law the natural
guardian of his children during their minorities. He is
charged with the duty of bringing them up properly. He has
therefore a paramount right to the custody of his children of
which he cannot be deprived unless it is clearly shown that
14/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 04:27:37 pm )
OSA.No.244 of 2023
he is unfit to be their guardian.
Audiappa Pillai vs Nallendrani Pillai on 5 March, 1915
This is the view which has
been clearly taken in the reported cases decided subsequent
to Beasant's case : see Andiappa Pillai v. Nallendran Pillai
([1915] 39 Mad.
R.Satyanarayana vs R. Lakshmi Narasamma Lalitha Devi 10 ... on 30 November, 2022
473) Satyanarayana v. V.L. Narasayamma
(A.I.R. 1924 Mad 45) and Sakhdeo Rai v. Ramachandra Rao
(A.I.R. 1924 All. 622).
Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 13 January, 2021
21. The facts of the above case are very similar to the case before
9/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 04:27:37 pm )
OSA.No.244 of 2023
us. The Court records that the single Judge in that case had not spoken to
the child to ascertain his sentiments towards him when he had been
separated from the father in the year 2021, after living for 10 years with
his parents till his mother died.
1