Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Delhi in the case of Vermeet Singh Taneja v. Jasmeet Kaur, has held that welfare of the child is of prime consideration in guardianship cases.

What was the Background of Vermeet Singh Taneja v. Jasmeet Kaur Case?

• The appellant (father) filed an application before the Family Court under Section 43 (2) of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 (GD Act) directing the respondent (mother) to send the child to a school in Dwarka.
• The Family Court dismissed the appeal.
• Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi which was later rejected by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench comprising of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the welfare of the child is of prime consideration in guardianship cases.
• The Court further noted that the child was residing in Pitampura with his mother, and the school suggested by the father was in Dwarka (20 kms away). The current school is suited to the needs of the child as his mother always remains present with him and therefore, the change of school at this stage would not be in the interest and welfare of the child.

What is Section 43 of the GD Act?

• This Section deals with the order for regulating conduct or proceedings of guardians, and enforcement of those orders. It states that -

(1) The Court may, on the application of any person interested or of its own motion, make an order regulating the conduct or proceedings of any guardian appointed or declared by the Court.

(2) Where there are more guardians than one of a ward, and they are unable to agree upon a question affecting his welfare, any of them may apply to the Court for its direction, and the Court may make such order respecting the matter in difference as it thinks fit.

(3) Except where it appears that the object of making an order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) would be defeated by the delay, the Court shall, before making the order, direct notice of the application therefor or of the intention of the Court to make it, as the case may be, to be given, in a case under sub-section (1), to the guardian or, in a case under sub-section (2), to the guardian who has not made the application

(4) In case of disobedience to an order made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the order may be enforced in the same manner as an injunction granted under section 492 or section 493 of the Code of Civil Procedure (14 of 1882), in a case under sub-section (1), as if the ward were the plaintiff and the guardian were the defendant or, in a case under sub-section (2), as if the guardian who made the application were the plaintiff and the other guardian were the defendant.

(5) Except in a case under sub-section (2), nothing in this section shall apply to a Collector who is, as such, a guardian.