Stating that a mother is the natural guardian of a minor child after the father, according to the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956, the Allahabad High Court has set aside the judgment of local court and allowed a widow to sell her minor daughter’s share in joint family property in her interest for her higher studies.
In its March 23 order, a single bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal stated, “The appellant [mother] had moved the application seeking permission to sell 1/4th share of undivided joint family property for higher education of the minor girl [her daughter] who… has appeared in Class XII examination and wants to pursue her career further, for which substantial amount of money is needed…”
“… the 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,” it said.
1956 Guardianship Act
In her plea before the local court, the mother prayed that she be declared her daughter’s guardian and be granted permission to sell the child’s share in the property to fund her studies. The applicant’s mother-in-law, too, filed her consent in support of mother’s prayer.
However, the court appointed her guardian but did not grant permission to sell the land.
The mother then filed an appeal in the HC against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffanagar, passed on July 17 last year.
The counsel for the mother submitted that the local court was incorrect in refusing permission to sell the land, as refusal could not be made in view of Section 12 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
Story continues below this ad
The bench of Justice Agarwal observed, “… 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…”
It further observed that the 1956 Act has evolved a concept of natural guardian, which is the father, and after him the mother, in case of a minor boy or girl. In the case of a married girl, her husband is the natural guardian.
“Sub-section (2) curtails certain powers of a natural guardian and provides that without… permission of the court, no mortgage or charge can be created or property can be transferred by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise,” observed the court.
Similarly, the bench stated that leasing any part of the 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 the court’s nod.
Story continues below this ad
Sub-section (3) of the Act further states that any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention to sub-sections (1) and (2) is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him, the court stated.
The bench, in its order, stated, “It is clear that in case a minor has an interest in joint family property, it is the adult member who… would take care of the property and there is no need for appointment of any guardian.”
In this case, the court further stated in the order, the minor, being a Hindu and having an interest in undivided joint family property, is protected by the management of an adult family member. It is the mother who is managing the joint family property.
The order further stated, “… Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the judgment and order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, is unsustainable in the eyes of law and… stands set aside.”
