# Smt. Doli v. Smt. Shakuntla Devi

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 709
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-23
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 2057 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-doli-v-smt-shakuntla-devi-54409
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

3 All. Smt. Doli Vs. Smt. Shakuntla Devi
709

27. The petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 709
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2057 of 2025

Smt. Doli ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Shakuntla Devi ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether the court below was not correct to refuse the permission for selling the land recorded in the name of
minor having 1/4th share in the joint family property and refusal could not be made in view of Section 12 of
The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956

Head Notes
The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890- Section 8, 10 & 29; The Hindu Minority and Guardianship
Act, 1956- Section 12- Minor being a Hindu and having an interest in undivided joint family
property is protected by management of an adult member of the family. In the instant case, it is
the mother who is managing the joint family property, thus, the case of the appellant would not
fall within the parameters of Section 29 of the Act of 1890 or Section 8(2) of the Act of 1956,
rather the description of the property mentioned in Schedule of the application moved by
appellant clearly reveals that case falls under Section 12 of the Act of 1956 for consideration-
The appellant had moved the application seeking permission to sell the 1/4th share of undivided
joint family property for higher education of the minor girl Vanshika who at present has
appeared in Class XII examination and wants to pursue her career further for which substantial
amount of money is needed and appellant being the natural guardian under Section 6 of the Act
of 1956 can act as a manager being the adult member of joint family property and sell the share
of the minor girl for her welfare.

Held- The judgment and order dated 17.07.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Muzaffar
Nagar in G.C. Petition No. 249 of 2024 is unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same stands set aside-
Appeal stands allowed and the prayer made is granted. (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Dhanasekaran vs. Manoranjithammal and others, AIR 1992 Madras 214; First Appeal No. 2760 of 2024, Pooja
vs. The State of Maharashtra, decided 24.02.2025; First Appeal From Order No. 272 of 2024, Smt. Preeti
Arora vs. Subhash Chandra Arora and another, decided on 05.03.2024

List of Acts
The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890; The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956

List of Keywords
710 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Minor being Hindu; having interest in joint family property; Natural guardian U/S 6 of the Act of 1956 ; Can
act as a manager being the adult member of joint family property; And sell the share of the minor for her/his
welfare.

Case Arising From
First Appeal From Order has been filed under Section 47 of The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter
called as 'the Act of 1890'), assailing the judgment and order dated 17.07.2025 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No. 1, Muzaffar Nagar in G.C. Petition No. 249 of 2024 filed under Section 8/10 of the Act of
1890.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Appellant(s): Karuna Srivastava, Parth Goswami, Sanjay Goswami, Santosh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rati Bhan Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.)

1. This First Appeal From Order has been filed under Section 47 of The Guardians and Wards
Act, 1890 (hereinafter called as 'the Act of 1890'), assailing the judgment and order dated
17.07.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Muzaffar Nagar in G.C. Petition No.
249 of 2024 filed under Section 8/10 of the Act of 1890.

2. Brief facts, leading to filing of this appeal, are that appellant who is widow of Late Amit
Kumar and mother of minor girl Kumari Vanshika had filed an application before Court of
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar for declaring her guardian of minor
daughter Vanshika and also prayer was made for permitting her to sell the property of the minor
child mentioned in Schedule 'A' and 'B'. In the said case, grandmother of minor child, Smt.
Shakuntla Devi was arrayed as respondent. It was stated in the schedule that minor was having
1/4th share in the property described in Schedule 'A' and 'B'. The respondent appeared before court
below and filed her no objection stating that the appellant be declared as natural guardian and
permission as sought be granted. However, the court below after hearing the parties partly allowed
the application and appointed the appellant as guardian but did not grant permission to sell the land
as mentioned in Schedule 'A' and 'B'. Hence, the present appeal.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the court below was not
correct to refuse the permission for selling the land recorded in the name of minor having 1/4th
share in the joint family property. According to him, refusal could not be made in view of Section
12 of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as 'the Act of 1956').
Reliance has been placed upon the decision of co-ordinate Bench rendered in First Appeal From
Order No. 272 of 2024, Smt. Preeti Arora vs. Subhash Chandra Arora and another, decided
on 05.03.2024 and also upon a decision rendered by Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court in
First Appeal No. 2760 of 2024, Pooja vs. The State of Maharashtra, decided 24.02.2025.

4. Sri Rati Bhan Singh, learned counsel, has appeared on behalf of respondent and has
supported the case of appellant and states that he has no objection in case the appeal is allowed.

5. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
3 All. Smt. Doli Vs. Smt. Shakuntla Devi
711

6. Before adverting to decide the issue in hand, a cursory glance of some of provisions of the
Act of 1890 and the Act of 1956 is necessary for better appreciation of the case.

7. The Act of 1890 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to guardians and
wards which was initially enacted in the year 1858 which was amended in the year 1864. In the
said Act, Section 4(1) defines 'minor' which means a person who has not attained the age of
majority under Indian Majority Act, 1875 while sub-section (2) of Section 4 defines 'guardian'
meaning a person having the care of the person of a minor or of his property, or of both of his
person and property.

8. Section 7 provides for power of the Court to make an order as to guardianship. Section 8
entitles a person to apply for an order for being appointed as a guardian. Section 10 prescribes the
format of the application to be moved by person claiming to be appointed as a guardian of a minor.

9. Section 29 limits the power of a guardian of a property appointed or declared by the Court.
Sub-section (a) restricts that without previous permission of the Court, no mortgage or charge, or
transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise, any part of immovable property can be made by
guardian except without permission of the Court. Sub-section (b) restricts the guardian to lease out
any part of the property exceeding for a term of five years or for any term exceeding more than one
year beyond the date on which the ward will cease to be a minor, without permission of the Court.
Section 47 provides for an appeal.

10. Post independence, the Legislature enacted the Act of 1956 regulating the appointment of
guardian for Hindu minor. Section 2 provides the Act to be supplemental to the Act of 1890.
Section 4(a) defines a 'minor' and means a person who has not completed the age of 18 years while
sub-section (b) defines a 'guardian' which is as under:-

(b) "guardian" means a person having the care of the person of a minor or of his
property or of both his person and property, and includes-

i) a natural guardian,

(ii) a guardian appointed by the will of the minor's father or mother,

(iii) a guardian appointed or declared by a court, and

(iv) a person empowered to act as such by or under any enactment relating to any Court
of wards.

11. Section 6 defines 'natural guardians of a Hindu minor', which is extracted hereasunder:-

"6. Natural guardians of a Hindu minor.-The natural guardians of a Hindu minor; in
respect of the minor's person as well as in respect of the minor's property (excluding his or her
undivided interest in joint family property), are-

(a) in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl-the father, and after him, the mother:
provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily
be with the mother;

(b) in the case of an illegitimate boy or an illegitimate unmarried girl the mother, and
after her, the father;
712 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(c) in the case of a married girl-the husband:

Provided that no person shall be entitled to act as the natural guardian of a minor under
the provisions of this section-

(a) if he has ceased to be a Hindu, or

(b) if he has completely and finally renounced the world by becoming a hermit
(vanaprastha) or an ascetic (yati or sanyasi).

Explanation.-In this section, the expressions "father" and "mother" do not include a stepfather and a step-mother."

12. According to said section, natural guardian of a Hindu minor in respect of minor's person
as well as in respect of his property in case of a boy or an unmarried girl is the father and after him
the mother. Provided that custody of a minor who has not completed the age of 5 years shall
ordinarily be with the mother.

13. Section 8 provides for 'powers of natural guardian' which is extracted hereasunder:-

"8. Powers of natural guardian.-(1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power,
subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and
proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate;
but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant.

(2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court,-

(a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise, any part of the
immovable property of the minor; or

(b) lease any part of such property for a term exceeding five years or for a term extending
more than one year beyond the date on which the minor will attain majority.

(3) Any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of subsection (1) or sub-section (2), is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under
him.

(4) No court shall grant permission to the natural guardian to do any of the acts
mentioned in sub-section (2) except in case of necessity or for an evident advantage to the minor.

(5) The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), shall apply to and in respect of an
application for obtaining the permission of the court under sub-section (2) in all respects as if it
were an application for obtaining the permission of the court under section 29 of that Act, and in
particular-

(a) proceedings in connection with the application shall be deemed to be proceedings
under that Act within the meaning of section 4A thereof;

(b) the court shall observe the procedure and have the powers specified in sub-sections
(2), (3) and (4) of section 31 of that Act; and

(c) an appeal shall lie from an order of the court refusing permission to the natural
guardian to do any of the Acts mentioned in sub-section (2) of this section to the court to which
appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of that court.

(6) In this section, "court" means the city civil court or a district court or a court
empowered under section 4A of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), within the local
limits of whose jurisdiction the immovable property in respect of which the application is made is
situate, and where the immovable property is situate within the jurisdiction of more than one such
3 All. Smt. Doli Vs. Smt. Shakuntla Devi
713
court, means the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is
situate."

14. Section 12 provides that where a minor has an undivided interest in joint family property
and the property is under the management of an adult member of the family, no guardian shall be
appointed for the minor in respect of such undivided interest.

15. Thus, from the reading of provisions of the Act of 1890 and 1956, it is clear that the Act of
1890 does not define 'natural guardian' and only defines 'guardian' who is a person having the care
of the person of a minor or his property or of both. Under the Act of 1890, the application was to be
filed for the appointment of guardian under Section 8 read with Section 10 and the Court having
been satisfied would pass order appointing a guardian of a minor or property or of both. Section 29
limited the power of guardian appointed in respect of property of a ward as far as mortgage, charge,
transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise was concerned and it was only after the permission of
the Court that a guardian could proceed.

16. Post independence, the Act of 1956 was enacted which was applicable to any person who
is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms or developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a
follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj, a Buddhist, Jaina or Sikha by religion.

17. The Act of 1956 has a slight departure from the enactment of 1890 as it places a guardian
under different headings, such as, a natural guardian, a guardian appointed by Will, a guardian
appointed or declared by a Court and a person empowered to act, as such, by or under any
enactment. Simultaneously, the Legislature has also defined a natural guardian of a Hindu minor
and in case of a boy or an unmarried girl it is the father and after him the mother.

18. Thus, the Act of 1956 has evolved a concept of natural guardian which is father and after
him the mother in case of a minor boy or an unmarried minor girl. However, in case of married girl
it is the husband who is the natural guardian.

19. Section 8 lays down powers of natural guardian of a Hindu minor subject to provisions of
the said section. Sub-section (2) curtails certain powers of a natural guardian and provides that
without previous permission of the Court no mortgage or charge can be created or property can be
transferred by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise.

20. Similarly, lease of any part of property for a term exceeding five years or for a term
exceeding more than a year beyond the date on which the minor will attain majority can only be
done with previous permission of the Court. This provision is pari materia to Section 29 of the Act
of 1860. Sub-section (3) further states that any disposal of immovable property by a natural
guardian, in contravention to sub-section (1) and (2) is voidable at the instance of minor or any
person claiming under him.

21. Sub-section (5) is of great relevance as it provides that the Act of 1890 shall apply to and
in respect of an application for obtaining permission of the Court under sub-section (2) in all
respects as if it were an application for obtaining the permission of Court under Section 29 of that
714 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Act, meaning thereby that in any application moved under Section 8(2) of the Act of 1956,
provisions of the Act of 1890 shall apply as far as permission of the court is concerned.

22. Thus, sub-section (5) of Section 8 clarifies Section 2 of the Act of 1956 which provides the
Act to be supplemental to the Act No. 8 of 1890 and harmonious interpretation has to be given
between the provisions of the Act of 1890 and the Act of 1956 while dealing with applications
moved either under the Act of 1890 or under the Act of 1956 in case of a Hindu minor by a natural
guardian.

23. The concept of natural guardian was for the first time enunciated in the Act of 1956, while
the earlier Act was silent on the said subject and only provided for appointment of guardian.

24. In the instant case, though the application has been moved under Section 8 read with
Section 10 of the Act of 1890 by mother of a Hindu minor after the death of her husband being a
natural guardian, in view of Section 6, the case has to be considered in light of both provisions of
the Act of 1890 and the Act of 1956, both being beneficial legislation and enacted to protect the
interest of a minor and his property.

25. The Act of 1956 clearly in Section 6 defines a natural guardian of a Hindu minor in case of
boy or an unmarried girl to be his father and after him the mother.

26. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that Late Amit Kumar father of the minor had died
and application has been moved by mother who is a natural guardian as per the Act. The
permission which has been sought is for selling the interest of a minor in a joint family property.

27. Section 12 of the Act of 1956 clearly spells that guardian not to be appointed for minor's
undivided interest in joint family property as it is under the management of an adult member of the
family. Here the father of the minor had already died and the mother who is the adult member is
acting as a manager of joint family property. She is also the natural guardian as per Section 6 of the
Act of 1956.

28. Thus, from the reading of Section 29 of the Act of 1890, Section 8(2) and Section 12 of the
Act of 1956, it is clear that in case a guardian is appointed by the Court, permission has to be
sought in respect of mortgaging or creating a charge on the property of minor, or transfering it by
sale, gift, exchange or otherwise.

29. However, in the instant case, minor being a Hindu and having an interest in undivided
joint family property is protected by management of an adult member of the family. In the instant
case, it is the mother who is managing the joint family property, thus, the case of the appellant
would not fall within the parameters of Section 29 of the Act of 1890 or Section 8(2) of the Act of
1956, rather the description of the property mentioned in Schedule of the application moved by
appellant clearly reveals that case falls under Section 12 of the Act of 1956 for consideration.

30. The Bombay High Court in case of Pooja (supra) while dealing with a case under the Act
of 1956, relying upon various judgments of the Apex Court, held that restriction imposed by
3 All. Smt. Doli Vs. Smt. Shakuntla Devi
715
Section 8 cannot be applied to fluctuating interest of minors in undivided share in joint family
property. Relevant paragraphs are extracted hereasunder:-

"8. Plain reading of aforesaid Section depicts that it does not expressly exclude
undivided interest of minor in joint family property. However, Section 8 cannot be read in
isolation, which would have to be read along with Section 6, 9 & 12. Harmonious reading of
which, in the backdrop of preamble of Act would show restrictions imposed by Section 8 cannot be
applied to fluctuating interest of minors in undivided share in joint family property. Therefore,
natural guardian being eldest member of joint family, in-charge of property, can exercise powers
to deal with minors in joint family property keeping in mind aspect of legal necessity, interest and
benefit of minor. Needless to state that no such alienation would be voidable at instance of minor if
it is proved that same was made for legal necessity and for benefit of minor.

9. At this stage, reference can be given to judgment of Supreme Court of India in case of
Sri Narayan Bal and Others Vs. Shridhar Sutar and Others,2, wherein answering question as to
whether Section 8 of the Hindu Minor Minority and Guardianship Act was applicable to Hindu
Family property to sell or dispose of it by the "Karta" of family. Following observations are made
in paragraph No. 5, which read as under:

"With regard to the undivided interest of the Hindu minor in joint family property, the
provisions afore-culled are beads of the same string and need be viewed in a single glimpse.
simultaneously in conjunction with each other. Each provisions, and in particular Section 8 cannot
be viewed in isolation. If read together the intent of the legislature in this beneficial legislation
becomes manifest. Ordinarily the law does not envisage a natural guardian of the undivided
interest of a Hindu minor in joint family property. The natural guardian of the property of a Hindu
minor, other than the undivided interest in joint family property, is alone contemplated under
Section 8 where under his powers and duties are defined. Section 12 carves out an exception to the
rule that should there be no adult member of the joint family in management of the joint family
property, in which the minor has an undivided interest, a guardian may be appointed; but
ordinarily no guardian shall be appointed for such undivided interest of the minor. The adult
member of the family in the management of the Joint Hindu Family property may be a male or a
female, not necessarily the Karta. The power of the High Court otherwise to appoint a guardian, in
situations justifying, has been preserved. This is the legislative scheme on the subject. Under
Section 8 a natural guardian of the property of the Hindu minor, before he disposes of any
immovable property of the minor, must seek permission of the court. But since there need be no
natural guardian for the minor's undivided interest in the joint family property. as provided under
Section 6 to 12 of the Act, the previous permission of the Court under Section 8 of disposing of the
undivided interest of the minor in the joint family property is not required. The joint Hindu family
by itself is a legal entity capable of acting through its Karta and other adult members of the family
in management of the joint Hindu family property. Thus Section 8 in view of the express terms of
Section 6 and 12 would not be applicable where a joint Hindu family property is sold/disposed of
by the Karta involving an undivided interest of the minor in the said joint Hindu family property.
The question posed at the outset therefore is so answered."

10. Same view has been reiterated by two judgments of this Court firstly in case of
Sandhya Rajan Antapurkar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein, following observations
are made:
716 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"11. Under the Hindu Law, the manager or karta of the family of the minor can alienate
minor's undivided interest in the Joint family property without the permission of the Court,
provided alienation is for legal necessity or for the benefit of the minor and this right is left
untouched by the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956."

11. In yet another Judgment in case of Shripati s/o Santu Mane Vs. Goroba s/o Nivarti
Ghutukade and another, by referring Article 525 of page 524 of Mulla's Principles of Hindu Law,
Twentieth Edition, Vol-I, it is observed that

"Where father is not alive, mother is natural guardian and therefore, alienation made by
her without seeking permission under Section 8 of the Act is held as valid." Further observation is
that "intention of Section 8 of the Act is not fettered customary powers of natural guardian in the
matter of dealing with Hindu joint family property including minor sons' undivided shares."

12. Reliance was placed on observations of judgment of this Court in case of Narayan
Laxman Gilankar Vs. Udaykumar Kashinath Kaushik.

13. As rightly pointed out Mr. R.J.Nirmal learned Advocate appearing for appellant that
a similar view is reiterated by Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in case of Preeti Arora Vs.
Subhash Chandra Arora Allahabad High Court."

31. The Division Bench of Madras High Court in case of Dhanasekaran vs.
Manoranjithammal and others, AIR 1992 Madras 214 held that in Section 12, adult member
would include both male and female. Relevant paragraphs are extracted hereasunder :-

"11. A Bench of this Court held in Venkatakrishna Reddy v. Amarababu, (1971) 2 Mad
LJ 466 as follows:

"Neither the father nor the mother can, as the minor's natural guardian, alienate such an
undivided interest of the minor ...... it has been consistently held that in respect of such undivided
interest of a coparcener neither the natural guardian nor the guardian appointed under the
Guardians and Wards Act had any power to sell that interest even for necessity or for benefit. The
distinction that obtained under the general Hindu Law between the separate property of a minor
and his undivided coparcenary interest is kept up also under the provisions of the Hindu Minority
and Guardianship Act of 1956. S. 6 of that Act which defines a natural guardian excludes minor's
undivided interest in a joint family property from the operation of that section and S. 12 imposes a
prohibition against the appointment of a guardian by a Court other than the High Court in respect
of an undivided interest of a minor in a joint family property when such joint family property is in
the management of an adult member of the family. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the
fourth defendant as the natural guardian of the minor sons is authorised to sell the undivided
interest of the minors as such in the joint family properties either under the general Hindu Law or
under the provisions of this Act."

(Emphasis is ours)

The learned Judges in the said decision also observed as follows:

"On this aspect some light is thrown by the wording in S. 12 of the Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act. That section says that where a minor has an undivided interest in joint family
property and the property is under management of an adult member of the family, no guardian
shall be appointed for the minor in respect of such undivided interest. The adult member of the
3 All. Smt. Doli Vs. Smt. Shakuntla Devi
717
family may be either male or female. If there is no adult member of the family in management then
the prohibition contained in Section 12 will not apply. But if there is an adult member in the
management of the joint family property, then the Court is prohibited from appointing a guardian
for the minor's undivided interest in the joint family property. The section does not say that the
adult member could only be a male member. If in case where there is no adult male member and all
the members of the family are minors, a guardian can be appointed by the Court with reference to
the entire joint family property."

(Emphasis is ours)

12. So, in S. 12, adult member would include both male and female and in this respect,
with due respect, we observe that the decision of Ratnam, J. in the above referred to (1980) 2 Mad
LJ 296 holding that the term "adult member" in S. 12 contemplates only the case of the male
member of a family, is not correct. Further, the above said (1971) 2 Mad LJ 466 also pointed out
thus:

"Cases have also held that the management of the joint family and its affairs can be
taken up not only by an adult male member of the family but also by a female member of the family
like the mother. When this adult mother is in actual management of the joint family properties
including the undivided interest of its minor members, S. 12 prohibits a guardian beingappointcd in
such a case as there is an adult member in management of the property. It is true a mother cannot
be a coparcener in a joint family but it cannot be denied that she is a member of the joint family."

Therefore, the management spoken of in S. 12 need not necessarily be management as
kartha, but would include even the management otherwise.

13. We may also point out one other aspect. S. 12 of the Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, as Mayne's Hindu Law (12th Edition- page 507) says, statutorily recognises the
principle which was laid down consistently by several High Courts that under the Guardians and
Wards Act of 1890, no guardian can be appointed, for minor's undivided interest in the joint family
properties, where the property is under the management of an adult. Yet, it has been held even
under the Guardians and Wards Act, a guardian can be appointed in cases where the minor is the
sole surviving coparcener [vide Rakhmabai v. Sitabai, ILR (1952) Bom 455: (AIR 1952 Bomay
160)]. In Mayne's Hindu Law, 12th edition at page 508 it is stated thus:

"It is also well recognised by the courts that a guardian can be appointed in cases where
the minor is the sole surviving coparcener."

Therefore, the case of the interest of the sole surviving coparcener in the joint family
property is treated as if it were a separate property. Therefore, we think that S. 8 of the Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act would also cover the case of such an interest."

32. Thus, in view of above, it is clear that in case a minor has an interest in joint family
property, it is the adult member who is either male or female, would take care of the property and
there is no need for appointment of any guardian.

33. Section 8 and 12 of the Act of 1956 cannot be read in isolation. Moreso, if an application
has been made under the Act of 1890 under Section 8 read with Section 10 in respect of a Hindu
minor, provisions as contained in the Act of 1956 has to be considered while a guardian is being
718 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appointed as Section 2 and Section 8(5) clearly spells out that Act of 1890 is supplemental to the
Act of 1956.

34. As it is an undisputed fact that minor girl Vanshika is a Hindu, provisions of the Act of
1956 would be applicable though the application has been moved under Section 8 read with Section
10 of the Act of 1890. Both the Acts being beneficial legislation, benefits extended to a minor has
to be given as per provisions of the Act as welfare of a minor is paramount consideration.

35. The appellant had moved the application seeking permission to sell the 1/4th share of
undivided joint family property for higher education of the minor girl Vanshika who at present has
appeared in Class XII examination and wants to pursue her career further for which substantial
amount of money is needed and appellant being the natural guardian under Section 6 of the Act of
1956 can act as a manager being the adult member of joint family property and sell the share of the
minor girl for her welfare.

36. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the judgment and order
dated 17.07.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Muzaffar Nagar in G.C.
Petition No. 249 of 2024 is unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same stands set aside.

37. The appeal stands allowed and the prayer made is granted.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 718
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.

First Appeal Defective No. 672 of 2025

Neha Jaykishore Mehrolia ...Appellant
Versus
Rahul Sisodia ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Whether delay of 654 days in filing the present appeal is liable to be condoned on the ground of late discovery
of impugned judgment and, inter alia, Appellant not being in sound financial condition for 4 months

Head Notes
The Limitation Act, 1963- Section 5- The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Section 11 & 12- There is no
dispute that appellant had received the summons. She appeared in the Family Court but did not
file written statement. There may have been settlement, union and co-habitation afterward
during pendency of the proceeding, for which she stopped appearing but, she did appear in the
suit in response to the summons and did not file written statement. In these facts, to expect
respondent to prove ceremonies of appellant's earlier marriage, to which he was not party and
by no stretch of imagination an invitee, would render the admission of marriage as not