1. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956) S. 3 - Applicability - Clarifies that it applies to any person who is a Hindu by religion and to any person domiciled in India who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew unless it is proved that any such person would not have been governed by Hindu Law - In the present case, the Mother is a Christian but inasmuch as she has not raised any objection to the applicability of the HMG Act, we shall presume that minor is governed by Hindu Law.      (S.C.)(180) P.L.R.  
  2. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956) S. 6 - Guardians and Wards Act, 1896 (8 of 1896) S. 7, 25 - Father of the minors being the natural guardian, has the right of custody unless the Court comes to the conclusion that the father is unfit to have the custody and that it is not for the welfare of the minors that the father should be allowed to exercise his right - Guardianship is in the nature of a sacred trust and any entrustment is essentially a revocable authority - There is no justification to displace the right of the father, that too, when the minors are in the custody, taking education, living along with their grandparents and there is no proof as to cruel treatment by their father.       (177) P.L.R.  
  3. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956) S. 6 - Ordinarily - Mother has not established her suitability to be granted interim custody of minor who at that point in time was an infant - The proviso places the onus on the father to prove that it is not in the welfare of the infant child to be placed in the custody of his/her mother.      (S.C.)(180) P.L.R.  
  4. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956) S. 6 - Visitation rights succinctly stated are distinct from custody or interim custody orders - Essentially they enable the parent who does not have interim custody to be able to meet the child without removing him/her from the custody of the other parent - If a child is allowed to spend several hours, or even days away from the parent who has been granted custody by the Court, temporary custody of the child stands temporarily transferred.     (S.C.)(180) P.L.R.  
  5. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956) S. 6(a) - Preserves the right of the father to be the guardian of the property of the minor child but not the guardian of his person whilst the child is less than five years old.       (S.C.)(180) P.L.R.  
  6. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956) S. 8(1), 8(2)(a) - A bare reading of Section 8(1) of the Act indicates that it empowers the natural guardian to do all the acts which are necessary or reasonable or proper for the benefit of the minor - Section 8(2)(a) of the Act prescribes that either the purchaser or the seller should obtain the permission of the District Court to transfer the property by sale  Permission of court not taken at the time of alienation - Hence, the present transaction on the face of it is in contravention of the mandatory provisions laid down by the Act - When once a transaction takes place in the name of the minor which is in contravention of the 1956 Act and which is not done for legal necessity, such transaction is voidable and unless such a transaction is sought to be impeached or set aside, the question of recovery of possession of that property does not arise.   (2016)3 P.L.R. SC 865
  7. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956) S. 8(1), 8(2)(a) - Limitation Act, Section 7, Article 60  - A reading of Section 7 makes it clear that when one of several persons who are jointly entitled to institute a Suit or make an application for the execution of the decree and a discharge can be given without the concurrence of such person, time will run against all of them but when no such discharge can be given, time will not run against all of them until one of them becomes capable of giving discharge -  In the case on hand at the time of the filing of the suit, the 1st plaintiff was 20 years old, the 2nd Plaintiff was still a minor and the plaintiffs 3, 4 and 5, who are married daughters, were aged 29, 27 and 25 respectively, on the date of institution of the Suit -  As per Explanation 2 of Section 7, the manager of a Hindu undivided family governed by Mithakshara law shall be deemed to be capable of giving a discharge without concurrence of other members of family only if he is in management of the joint family property - In this case, plaintiffs 3 to 5 though majors as on the date of institution of Suit will not fall under Explanation 2 of Section 7 of the Limitation Act as they are not the manager or Karta of the joint family - The first plaintiff was 20 years old as on the date of institution of the Suit - Suit is instituted well within three years of limitation from the date of attaining majority as envisaged under Article 60 of the Limitation Act - Limitation Act Section 7, Articles 60, 109, 110 and 113. (2016)3 P.L.R. SC 865
  8. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956) S. 8(5) - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890) - Section 8(5) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 states that the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 shall be applied to an application for obtaining permission of the Court under sub-section 2 in all respects as if it were an application for obtaining permission of the Court under Section 29 of the Act - In this case since a permission had been granted, the order would become final as per the provisions of the Guardian and Wards Act - An order which is final for which no provision for an appeal is possible could be only subject of revision under Section 115  CPC - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S. 115 - Constitution of India, Article 227. (175) P.L.R.