IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 MFA.No. 86 of 2009() -------------------- OPGW.99/2008 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------------ SHEEJA SELIN, D/O.SUJATHA, AGED 26 YEARS, NAZARATH BHAVAN, KANARAVILA, VENPAKAL, ATHIYANOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- NIL. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON 05/06/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.F.A. (G&W)No. 86 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph Francis, J. This appeal is filed under Section 47 of the Guardian and Wards Act. The case of the appellant is that she is the mother of Master Jomon, aged 5 years, and Kumari Jomol, aged 3 years, of Nazarath Bhavan, Kannaravila, Athiyanoor Village, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram. The minors are under the care and custody of the appellant and she is looking after the affairs of the minors in the best possible manner. Master Jomon is now studying at Kindergarten at Ooruttukala School and Kumari Jomol is under the care and custody of the appellant. The appellant had no interest adverse to the interests of the minors and is suitable to be appointed as the guardian of the minors. The appellant had transferred 2.05 Acres of land in Re- survey No.15/17 and 15/18 of Kulathummal Village as per M.F.A. (G&W)No. 86 of 2009 2 Settlement Deed No.3352/04 of S.R.O. Balaramapuram. It was further averred that there is no permanent income from the property and the parents of the minors propose to take admission for the minors in a modern English Medium School in Thiruvananthapuram, for which a huge sum is necessary. It was further contended that if the petition schedule property, which is measuing only 20 cents, which forms part of larger extent of 185 cents, is sold, the sale proceeds can be utilised for the purpose of education and for the betterment of the children. There is one intending purchaser, namely, G. Surendran, S/o. Devadas, St.Mary's Bhavan, Kannaravila, Nelimoodu P.O., Neyyattinkara, who is ready and willing to purchase the property at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per cent, which is the best available market price in the locality. The appellant negotiated with the said Surendran in anticipation of the sanction from the court. It is prayed that in the interests of the children, the petition schedule property may be permitted to be disposed of. 2. There were no respondents in the Original Petition. Four witnesses were examined on the part of the appellant as PWs. 1 to 4. M.F.A. (G&W)No. 86 of 2009 3 Exts.P1 to P4 were also marked. The appellant was examined as PW1 and the father of the children was examined as PW4. 3. The learned Additional District Judge found that the appellant had no adverse interest against the minor children and the father had no objection in allowing the petition. But the learned District Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that it is the duty of the parents to maintain the children and hence no permission for sale of the property was granted. It was further held that the father was not a party to the petition and it was the mother, who came with the petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant sought permission for sale of the petition schedule property, having an extent of 20 cents, belonging to the minors. The minors are having another 165 cents of property in the same survey number. On appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Additional District Judge found that the appellant, who is the mother of the minor children, has no adverse interest against the minors. The father of the M.F.A. (G&W)No. 86 of 2009 4 minors, who was examined as PW4, has no objection in allowing the petition. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the petition schedule property has no road frontage and that property is situated in a remote area and sale consideration of Rs.7,000/- per cent is reasonable. The learned counsel further submitted that PW4, father of the minors, is a Mazdoor and he is away in Kasaragod in connection with his employment and that is why the mother of the minors has filed the petition. 6. It has come out in evidence that the appellant and her husband have no financial capacity to meet the educational expenses of the minors. It is a matter of common knowledge that now a days education is more expensive and a middle class family cannot afford education of the children in modern schools. Providing better education is the best thing that the parents can provide for the children. Since the appellant intends to sell the plaint schedule property for imparting better education to the minor children, we are of the view M.F.A. (G&W)No. 86 of 2009 5 that the Additional District Judge ought to have allowed the petition, as it is beneficial to the best interests of the children. 7. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The order in O.P.(G & W) No. 99 of 2008, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, dismissing that petition is set aside and the said Original Petition is allowed. The appellant/petitioner is appointed as the guardian of the minor children, Jomon and Jomol, for the purpose of executing the Sale Deed. Permission is granted to the appellant to sell the petition schedule property for a sale consideration of not less than Rs.7,000/- per cent. The appellant is directed to execute the Sale Deed within three months from this date and produce the copy of the Sale Deed before the Additional District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. There is no order as to cost. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) tm Judge M.F.A. (G&W)No. 86 of 2009 6