Last Updated on August 2, 2024 by Satish Mishra

Post covers Legal Guardian Case of Minors of Property After Husband’s Death. The court granted the wife to be guardian for minor children and take care of their property share till they attain majority.

In this case, we will cover transfer of property to wife’s name after the death of her husband for the welfare of kids from her in-laws under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 & Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 as decided by hon’ble court. So one can pretty much have fair idea how the case commences in courts if one is looking to have similar relief from District Courts of Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur.

Mother as Guardian after Husband’s Death

Also Read- Custody of a Child in Nri Cases

Judgment Digest on Guardians and Wards Act, 1890- Shalu Gujral v. State of NCT of Delhi

The present post will cover and give an overview of the case Shalu Gujral v. State of NCT of Delhi and it will give you a brief yet precise outline regarding all the major facts and issues involved in this particular case which basically revolves around claiming, transferring and releasing of the property as the legal guardian on behalf of the petitioner with respect to the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

The Judgement is based on whether the petitioner should be appointed as the legal guardian of the subject’s property on behalf of her and minor children. Let’s have a run-through of the particular case with our further set of facts and judgements supporting the case. In the case of Shalu Gujral v. State of NCT of Delhi, the petition is forwarded under Section 7,8,9 and 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 pleading the court to appoint the petitioner as the legal guardian of the person and property of her subject wards, i.e. her two children and also asking for transfer and release of undivided share of her subject wards from the immovable property as per decided in the terms of mediation settlement with her in-laws.

The case majorly states what are the factors pre-requisite for a person for claiming guardianship over his ward and property, as the chief issue of the fact is around that the petitioner wants the sum of her and her children’s rightful share in the undivided immovable property of her deceased husband, which was being denied by the in-laws of the deceased. The true nature of the judgement can be known by witnessing whether ends of justice are being met with while dealing with such civil matters so as to protect the interest of the petitioner. Other important feature, which we are going to discuss, is that both the parties have come to conclusion regarding the appropriate distribution of the share of the subject’s property in the name of petitioner and subject’s wards through mediation settlement.

The section 152 of CPC is an integral part of the judgement as there was certain clerical or arithmetical error found on the part of the court and thus it was corrected and the case was further amended to prevent any injustice to the parties. Apart from that all the procedures followed during mediation will be taken into consideration while reading of the case and mediation report to be submitted in the court. Thus, there are various determinants affecting the case which need to be presented before the court for dispensing of justice.

Also Read- Child Custody in Divorce

Facts of the case-

Court’s Name- IN THE COURT OF SH HARGURVARINDER SINGH JAGGI,ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE – 02, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT,DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI

Petitioner-

Shalu Gujral, W/o Late Ajay Gujral, R/o A-5/103-B, Janta Flats, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi

Respondent-

State of NCT of Delhi

Date of filing of petition: 07.02.2019

Date of order reserved: 17.09.2019

Date of pronouncement of order:23.09.2019

Date of amendment under Section 05.03.2020

152 CPC:

Timeline of events-

12.2010- birth year of Surbhi Gujral
06.2015- demise of petitioner’s husband (Ajay Gujral)
10.2015- birth year of Vihan Gujral
08.2017- Mediation Settlement
02.2019- notice of petition on the Statesman
03.2019- notice of petition on Rashtriya Sahara
03.2019- Valuation report of the subject property filed by SDM (Dwarka) Delhi

Petitioner’s Arguments/ Evidences-

The petitioner, namely Shalu Gujral filed this petition under section 7,8,9 and 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with section 8(2) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The petition is regarding claiming the guardianship of the rightful share of petitioner and subject wards, namely Surbhi Gujral and Vihan Gujral over the undivided immovable property of her deceased husband. As per the petition, the following facts can be known, that petitioner was a Hindu by religion and was married to Ajay Gujral as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies and they have two subject wards from their wedlock, Surbhi Gujral 12.12.2010 and Vihan Gujral on 03.10.2015. Petitioner’s husband died on 11.06.015 and on death of her husband, petitioner became the natural guardian of subject wards. After the death of her husband, petitioner was forcibly ejected out of her marital home, i.e. Subject property by the family members of deceased husband. The father of deceased was the owner of the one half of the undivided subject property also died intestate.

Petitioner further took recourse to legal alternative and filed complaint against her in-laws under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in the name Shalu Gujral v. Sunita Gujral pending before the Mahila Court, Dwarka, Delhi. As the proceedings took place in the Mediation Centre, both the parties came agreed on a settlement where the petitioner assured that she would transfer and release the 12.5% share of her and subject wards on payment of 9,00,000/-.

Apart from that it was decided that Sunita Gujral would issue a no-objection in favour of petitioner for release of Rs 4,32,000/- which is currently lying in the account of Ajay Gujral, the deceased and the other balance amount of Rs 4,68,000/- will be paid by the brother of deceased, Vijay Gujral by way of two demand drafts of Rs 2,34,000/- in two instalments, one to be paid at time of execution of relinquishment deed and second one to be paid before the Mahila Court in Dwarka, Delhi. Henceforth, the petitioner was asked to apply for permission for execution of relinquishment deed of the subject property in the name of Vijay Gujral.

The petitioner has further advanced certain submissions to prove her legitimacy over the subject wards and subject property for seeking permission to transfer and release their share from the subject property and to appoint her as the legal guardian of the subject wards as well as the subject property as agreed under the mediation settlement dated 03.08.2017.

Also Read- Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Divorce Free Legal Advice

It was pleaded that petitioner is an entitled person as per Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and Section 8 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and all the required evidence as mentioned under Section 13 of Wards Act to prove her relation with the deceased, subject wards, subject property are submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner has further examined herself and submitted Aadhar card of petitioner, subject wards, death certificate of deceased (Ajay Gujral) and copy of Mediation Report dated 03.08.2017 in court. The aadhar card of the subject wards shows their father name as Lt. Ajay Gujral and same is shown in the aadhar of the petitioner too which leaves no area of doubt for proving the relation between petitioner and subject wards.

The counsel of petitioner further submits under Section 7 of the Wards Act, that a guardian can be appointed with respect to person and property by court for the welfare of the minor whereas Section 29 of the Wards Act places restrictions on guardian to deal with property except with the permission of the Court and the court is empowered to grant permission to the guardian under section 29 and lays down certain essentials to be fulfilled, for selling off the property, i.e. either it is an absolute necessity or some evident advantage to minor. It was stated by court that maintenance of minor is definitely legal necessity, especially when minor has a small share in property, thus petitioner was allowed to take decisions on behalf of her subject wards in matters of property.

Also Read- Custody Issues in Marriage Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali

Order of the Court-

After looking into all the aspects and evidences provided by the petitioner, it was stated by the court that petitioner being the mother has natural bond with the subject wards and thus court finds the petitioner best suited to be the guardian of subject wards, namely Surbhi Gujral and Vihan Gujral and she is also appointed as legal guardian and is allowed to take decisions of property matters on their behalf till they attain majority.

There were certain issues involved in the petition with regard to the declaration of the legal guardian of the subject wards and the subject property. Firstly, the petitioner was ejected out of her matrimonial house after the demise of her husband along with her children and thus petitioner filed a complaint against her in-laws under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for claiming her and subject wards’ share in the undivided immovable property of her deceased husband, which was at first objected by the in-laws but the settlement was made after filing of complaint in the Mahila Court, Dwarka, Delhi in the Mediation Centre where the respondents agreed to pay a sum of Rs 9,00,000/- to the petitioner in return for a relinquishment deed to be signed by petitioner in favour of Vijay Gujral. There were no major controversies with regard to proving the relation between petitioner, subject wards and the deceased as all the necessary documents were presented by the petitioner to establish the relation.

Also Read- Maintenance Is Your Right When You Can’t.

List of Judgements involved-

Sakshi Devi v. State of NCT of Delhi
Madras – See Minor Mahema&Anr. v. E.K. Kingamoorthy&Anr

As per the contentions and evidences presented by the petitioner and looking into the whole matter, it was observed by the court that petitioner has shown a case of necessity in order to relinquish the property for her subject wards and her case is a genuine one, thus the court is granting her permission to transfer and release the subject property and the relinquishment deed is done in favour of the subject wards as per the terms of the mediation settlement. A guardianship certificate to be issued in the name of Shalu Gujral of the wards, Surbhi Gujral and Vihan Gujral and she also is permitted to make the decisions regarding the property matters of subject wards until they attain the age of majority. As per Section 34(b) of the Wards Act, petitioner is directed to deliver a statement of the immovable property belonging to subject wards and the money received by her upon the completion of transfer within a period of 6 weeks. The amount of Rs 4,68,000/- is to be deposited as two fixed deposit each of Rs 2,34,000/- in the name of the subject ward individually till they attain majority. The copy of the Fixed deposit receipt signed by the branch manager and relinquishment deed to be submitted in the court within 3 weeks of registration and execution of the deed and all other expenses could be used up by the petitioner for the other expenditure of subject wards like their tuition fees, stationary expenses etc. These were the major findings and relief granted by court and they found that the case of petitioner was a genuine one without any malice intention.
Thus, as we look into the case of Shalu Gujral v. State of NCT of Delhi, it can be concluded that there is no one particular way of looking at things and the courts have to look upon each and every conditions, facts and issue of the case before giving any decision. The case majorly talks about the appointment of petitioner as the legal guardian along with the transfer and release of the undivided immovable property where the petitioner and her subject wards also hold a share. Petitioner is a widow who filed the petition to avail her part of share legally as the in-laws had severed ties with her and subject wards and were not willing to give her any share in the property of her deceased husband and even ejected her from her matrimonial home, thus the petitioner was forced to file a complaint under Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which led to a settlement between both the parties and petitioner was given a valuation of 12.5% of share from the property and promised sum of Rs 9,00,000/- to be paid to petitioner and in return petitioner was asked to file a relinquishment deed in the name of Vijay Gujral.

Also Read- DIRECTION PETITION IN HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH FOR SPEEDY TRIAL

Thus, the whole case revolved around whether she was allowed to sign such relinquishment on behalf of her subject wards and whether she could claim the amount from her in-laws. Finally, as per the judgment the case was decided in favour of petitioner and she was declared as the legal guardian of her subject wards and was quite authorized to take their property related decisions till they were minor.

One can read the entire judgment here.

For case specific advice, please contact best top expert Custody and Visitation (Family) Lawyer Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Zirakpur Derabassi Baltana. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.