List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

As per the recent ruling by the Allahabad High Court, under Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, the concept of "ordinary residence" in relation to a minor does not include temporary living arrangements, even if the minor has temporarily relocated for educational reasons at the time of the custody petition under the Act.

• Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 specifies that petitions regarding the guardianship of a minor's person must be filed in the District Court having authority over the area where the minor typically resides.
• Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 9 define the jurisdiction in cases concerning the minor's property.

What was the Background of Dheeraj v. Smt. Chetna Goswami?

• Respondent-mother filed a custody petition under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act.
• Appellant-father, learning of the case through a newspaper notice, sought dismissal citing lack of jurisdiction in the Family Court at Ghaziabad, as the minor was studying in Bhiwani, Haryana.
• Appellant's application was rejected, affirming Family Court jurisdiction based on the father's ordinary residence in Ghaziabad and Section 9(1) of the Act.
• Petitioner's counsel argued the Family Court erred in disregarding the minor's residence in Haryana, stating that the determination of where the minor "ordinarily resides" required an inquiry into both fact and law.
• The appeal filed by the father was dismissed.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held a bare perusal of section 9 (1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 makes it apparent that it is the ordinary place of residence of a minor which determines the jurisdiction of the Court for entertaining an application for guardianship of the minor.
  • Such jurisdiction cannot be taken away by temporary residence elsewhere on the date of the petition's presentation. The fact that the minor is found actually residing at the place when the application for the guardianship of the minor is made does not determine the jurisdiction of the Court.
• The Allahabad High Court ruled that under Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, a minor's "ordinary residence" does not include temporary residences, even for educational purposes, when filing for custody.
• The Court stated that determining the ordinary residence of the ward involves assessing intention, constituting a factual inquiry.
• The Court ruled that a temporary residence at the time of filing a petition under the Act would not be regarded as the place where the minor ordinarily resides.
• It emphasized that resolving the legal aspect of "where the minor ordinarily resides" necessitates an inquiry into the factual circumstances of the case unless jurisdictional facts are conceded.

What are the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?

• About
  • In India minors, due to their physical and mental immaturity, are unable to act independently, necessitating legislative provisions for guardianship.
  • Legislation pertaining to guardianship and wards in India
    • The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956,
    • The Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890,
  • Laws derived from Islamic, Parsi, and Christian traditions.
  • The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, enacted on July 1, 1890, serves to safeguard the interests and property of minors nationwide, consolidating and amending laws concerning guardianship and wards while respecting the diverse personal laws governing these matters.
• Feature of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
  • The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 empowers the District Court or relevant jurisdictional authority to appoint a guardian for a minor, tasked with overseeing the minor's welfare, property, or both.
  • Serving as umbrella legislation, the Act complements personal laws across various religions concerning guardianship matters, ensuring a comprehensive legal framework.
  • While primarily substantive law, the Act also incorporates procedural provisions that interface with personal laws in certain scenarios, facilitating a harmonized application within the broader legal context.

What is Section 9 of the Act ?

• About
  • Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 delineates the court's jurisdiction regarding applications under the Act.
  • In matters concerning guardianship of minors, the court's jurisdiction extends to the location where the guardians of minors reside or are domiciled.
  • Regarding applications pertaining to the property of minors, the District Court may exercise jurisdiction either where the minor resides or where the property is situated.
• Legal Provision
  • Section 9 deals with court having jurisdiction to entertain application. It states that
    • If the application is with respect to the guardianship of the person of the minor, it shall be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides.
    • If the application is with respect to the guardianship of the property of the minor, it may be made either to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides or to a District Court having jurisdiction in a place where he has property.
    • If an application with respect to the guardianship of the property of a minor is made to a District Court other than that having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides, the Court may return the application if in its opinion the application would be disposed of more justly or conveniently by any other District Court having jurisdiction.

What is the Landmark Judgment cited in Dheeraj v. Smt. Chetna Goswami Case?

• Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Dr. Ku. Vimla Gupta (2003):
  • In this case Allahabad High Court emphasized that the determination of a minor's ordinary residence hinges on whether the minor was primarily residing in a particular location, notwithstanding any temporary relocation due to special circumstances at the time of legal proceedings.
• Manish Sehgal v. Meenu Sehgal (2013):
  • The Supreme Court clarified that a minor's place of study does not constitute their ordinary residence, establishing a clear distinction between temporary educational arrangements and habitual residence.
• Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant Singh (1963):
  • The Supreme Court elaborated on the concept of "reside," affirming that it entails more than mere temporary or occasional presence, indicating a habitual or permanent dwelling.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently a bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta observed that ignoring a judgment of court would undermine soundness.

• The Supreme Court gave this observation in the case of Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

What was the Background of Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors Case?

• The State of Haryana inserted sub-clause (6) to Section 2(g) of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 by a gazette notification dated 11th February 1992, which received the President's assent on 14th January 1992.
• The review petitioner, along with other landowners, filed a batch of writ petitions before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, challenging the amendment.
• A Full Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petitions.
• The State of Haryana challenged the Full Bench's decision before the Supreme Court in a Civil Appeal.
  • The Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration due to Article 31A of the Constitution.
• The Full Bench of the High Court, vide judgment dated 13th March 2003, partly allowed the petitions and issued certain directions regarding mutation entries made by the Revenue Authorities.
• Aggrieved by the Full Bench's judgment, the State of Haryana filed Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court, which was allowed by the Supreme Court's judgment dated 7th April 2022.
• The review petitioner filed the present review petition against the Supreme Court's judgment dated 7th April 2022.
• The review petitioner submitted that the Supreme Court's judgment under review (JUR) was contrary to the law laid down by the Constitution Bench judgments.
• He contended that JUR did not correctly consider the precedents set by Constitution Bench judgments regarding the vesting of land and modification of rights under the consolidation scheme.
  • JUR ignored settled precedents that were holding the field for decades.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The SC held that “Ignoring the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court and taking a view totally contrary to the same itself would amount to a material error, manifest on the face of the order.
• The court allowed a review petition.

What is Doctrine of Precedent under Constitution of India, 1950?

• About:
  • The rule of precedent has been adopted from English jurisprudence into the Indian Constitution.
  • Article 141 of the COI deals with the doctrine of precedent.
    • Article 141 stipulates that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.
  • The doctrine of precedent is a principle of following previous decisions of the Court within its well-defined limits.
  • The part of the judgement which constitutes the ratio decidendi of the judgement has a binding effect and not the part of the judgement which constitutes of obiter dictum.
    • The rationale of the judgment is called Ratio Decidendi. Such a principle of law is not only applicable to that particular case but all subsequent similar cases.
    • Obiter Dictum is a mere judicial opinion in a particular case and has no general application.
  • In Bir Singh v. Union of India (2019), it was held that the judgment of a decided case is precedent and the same will operates as a binding precedent to all possible contingencies when a similar issue of law arises.
• General Principles in Relation to Doctrine of Precedent:
  • The decisions of the superior courts bind the inferior courts, and they are obligated to follow them.
  • The SC is not bound by its own decisions and has the liberty to depart from them if necessary.
  • The decision put forth by one high court does not constitute a binding precedent over another.
  • The HCs or the other subordinate courts do not have the power to rule out the decisions of the SC.
  • Procedural irregularity and immateriality do not invalidate the binding nature of a judgement
  • Ex-parte decisions by Supreme Court are also binding in nature and can be used as precedents.
  • A Bench with a lesser quorum cannot dissent from the decisions of a larger quorum.
  • Procedural irregularity and immateriality do not invalidate the binding nature of a judgement

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently in the Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand (d) And Others case, the Supreme Court ruled that for a female Hindu to assert absolute ownership of an undivided property within a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) under Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act 1956 (HSA), she must be in possession of the property in question.

What was the Background of Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand (d) And ors. ?

• The adopted son of a female Hindu (widow) sought partition of the HUF property, claiming it was inherited by his widowed mother.
• Even though the widow was not in possession of the HUF property, the lawsuit seeking title and possession was rejected.
• The respondent (adopted son) filed a suit for partition of the HUF property in High Court which was allowed.
• The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The supreme court allowed the appeal and reversed the impugned judgment of the High Court.
  • Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta observed that for establishing full ownership on the undivided joint family estate under Section 14(1) of the HSA the Hindu female must not only be possessed of the property but she must have acquired the property and such acquisition must be either by way of inheritance or devise, or at a partition or “in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance” or by gift or be her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription”.
• Section 14(1) of the HSA mandates that for a female Hindu to assert full ownership of undivided HUF property, she must satisfy two criteria:
  • being in possession of the property
  • acquiring it through inheritance, devise, partition, maintenance, gift, skill, exertion, purchase, or prescription.
• The Court noted that the Hindu female's lack of possession of the HUF property meant that merely inheriting a share in the HUF would not suffice to support her claim of full ownership over it.

What is Hindu Succession Act, 1956?

• It was enacted on 17th June 1956 to amend and codify the law relating to intestate succession among Hindus.
• The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 amended the provisions on coparcenary property, giving daughters of the deceased equal rights with sons, and subjecting them to the same liabilities.

What is Hindu Succession Act, 1956?

About:

• Section 14 of HSA, 1956 deals with the property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property.
• Absolute Ownership:
  • Section 14 grants female Hindus absolute ownership of any property they possess, regardless of when it was acquired, whether before or after the Act's commencement.
• Exception:
  • This absolute ownership does not apply to properties acquired through specific means such as gift, will, decree, order of a civil court, or award if those instruments prescribe a restricted estate.
• Legal Status:
  • Once a female Hindu possesses a property, it becomes her full and unrestricted ownership under this section, giving her the same legal rights as any other property owner.

Legal Provision of Section 14 of HSA:

• Section 14 of HSA deals property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property. It states that -

(1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.

Explanation.—In this sub-section, “property” includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as Stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act.

(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property.

What are the Major Case Laws Related to Section 14 of HSA?

• M Sivadasan (Dead) through LRs v. A.Soudamini (Dead) through LRs and others (2003) , Supreme Court observed that possession was a pre­requisite to sustain a claim under sub­section (1) of Section 14 of this Act. The Hindu female must not only be possessed of the property, but she must have acquired the property. Such acquisition must be either by way of inheritance or devise, or at a partition or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance or by gift or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription.
• In Chaudhary v. Ajudhia (2003), the High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that it is immaterial as to how the female acquired the property and if she possesses any property, the property is considered as her absolute property.