IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 MFA.No. 246 of 2009() --------------------- OPGW.277/2008 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT- I, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------------ SUDHA, W/O.SASIDHARAN, VELAPPA MANDIRAM, NEAR THONIKADAVU, UCHAKKADA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- NIL. THE NEAR RELATIVES OF THE MINOR 1. SASIDHARAN, S/O.SANKARAN, RESIDING AT VELAPPA MANDIRAM, KULATHOOR, UCHAKKADA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (FATHER OF THE MINOR). 2. PANKAJAKSHI, VELAPPA MANDIRAM, KULATHOOR, UCHAKKADA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (GRAND MOTHER OF THE MINOR). 3. S.VASU, S/O.SANKARAN, VELAPPA MANDIRAM, KULATHOOR, UCHAKKADA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (UNCLE OF THE MINOR). * 4. SREEKUMARAN, S/O.NEELAKANTAN, KALLIYIL VEEDU, POZHIYOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (UNCLE OF THE MINOR). (DELETED) (4TH RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE ARRAY OF PARTIES VIDE ORDER DATED 13.11.2009 IN I.A.No. 3360/09) ADV. SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN FOR R1 TO R3 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.(G&W)No. 246 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. This appeal is directed against an order passed in an application filed under Sections 8 and 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act for permission of the District Court for sale of an item of property belonging to the minor child of the petitioner/appellant. The court below took the view that the father of the minor having not joined as a petitioner, the prayer of the petitioner/wife cannot be allowed. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was only an inadvertent procedural error of not arraying the father as one of the petitioners. The father has been shown as respondent before this Court. He has entered appearance. The father prays that permission may be granted to him to execute the document. 3. We note that the court below has not gone in detail to the question on merits. We are satisfied in the interests of justice that it will be apposite in these circumstances to set aside the M.F.A.(G&W)No.246/09 -2- impugned order and direct the court below to dispose of the petition afresh after giving the first respondent herein (father) to file a petition to join as an additional petitioner along with the original petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner and the first respondent herein must be given opportunity to adduce all such evidence as may be necessary in support of the claim for permission to assign the share of the minor. 4. We are satisfied in these circumstances that this appeal can be allowed and appropriate directions can be issued. 5. In the result: (a) this appeal is allowed in part. (b) impugned order is set aside. (c) the learned Additional District Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram is directed to dispose of O.P.(G&W)No.277/08 afresh in accordance with law. (d) We make it clear that the first respondent herein, the father of the child shall be permitted to join as an additional petitioner in the O.P. and both M.F.A.(G&W)No.246/09 -3- petitioners (parents of the child) shall be permitted to adduce all necessary evidence in support of their case. (e) Parties shall appear before the Additional District Court-I(appearance can be through counsel) on 01.12.2009. (f) The learned Judge shall make every endeavour to dispose of the case as expeditiously thereafter possible, at any rate within a period of one month from 02.12.2009. Compliance shall be reported to this Court. 6. Hand over copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the appellant. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn