HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5169 of 2010 ORDER: This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 21.06.2010 of the learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada rejecting I.A.No.427 of 2010 in G.O.P.No.532 of 2008. The revision petitioner filed the G.O.P., under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and under Section 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act, for her appointment as a guardian of her minor brother, M.Gunadeep, in respect of his person and property pleading that their mother is deceased and the whereabouts of their father are not known. After due process, by order dated 30.06.2009, the revision petitioner was appointed as a guardian for her minor brother M.Gunadeep and the direction was also given to get a detailed report prepared by the Bank Officials as to the contents of a locker. Thereafter, the revision petitioner approached the bank and obtained the memorandum of items stored in the locker, about 12 items of gold ornaments weighing about 239.160 gram. The petitioner filed I.A.No.427 of 2010 seeking permission to retrieve the articles from the bank locker so that she could utilize them for herself and for her brother duly undertaking not to alienate any of the articles mentioned in the inventory. This application was rejected by the Court below stating that the ornaments are not suitable for the minor child and it was impermissible for the petitioner to use the property of the minor except as a custodian of the interest of the property of the minor. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner states that as she is also a heir along with her minor brother Gunadeep for whom she was appointed as a guardian in G.O.P.No.532 of 2008, the revision petitioner has an equal right or a half right in the properties in the bank locker which have been mentioned in the inventory and she is entitled to use her share of the ornaments. The affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.427 of 2010 however is not clear on this aspect. The Court below rightly found that the articles are not of any present utility for the minor Gunadeep. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would file a better affidavit along with an appropriate application. In the facts and circumstances, the revision is disposed of at the admission stage. The order of the learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, dated 21.06.2010, is set aside and I.A.No.427 of 2010 in G.O.P.No.532 of 2008 dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner is accorded liberty to file an appropriate application duly specifying the mode of apportionment of the gold articles in the bank locker inventoried under Ex.P.1, for equitable distribution of those ornaments between the revision petitioner and the minor Gunadeep for whom she was appointed as a guardian in G.O.P.No.532 of 2008. On such an application being filed, the Court below may consider the same in accordance with law. GODA RAGHURAM,J Date:24.12.2010 usd