Published on: June 23, 2022 at 17:33 IST
According to the Gujarat High Court, even when a mother is the child’s natural guardian and wants to sell off the child’s property, her application may be seen suspiciously and she may be denied permission to do so if the necessary relevant information is not provided.
Justice Umesh A. Trivedi presided over a Single Bench was hearing an appeal by the mother of a minor challenging the refusal of permission to sell the child’s share of a property. After the passing of her husband in 2021, the appellant said she had spent a sizable sum of money on the minor’s education. She had said that managing her finances and the said property was challenging at the moment. It was said that she wasn’t in a position to earn because she wasn’t as educated. The properties, which were jointly owned by the minor and the share of the other co-owners, were requested to be sold off because there was no other source of income.
The court ruled that the appellants’ application lacked sufficient material regarding the costs that had already been spent, would need to be spent in the near future, or would otherwise be required. However, in the decision on which the appellants rely, where a father had assigned his property to the minor, the Court reached the conclusion quoted by the appellants after examining the evidence available on record. The said authority was deemed to be inapplicable in the present case as a result.
Furthermore, it was determined that simply stating that the minor is enrolled in the 12th grade without providing any additional information about the amount spent on his education or his academic performance was insufficient because the Court was unable to estimate the potential costs that the mother would be required to pay.
Thus, the court was of the opinion, “In absence of necessary and material details, the refusal of permission to sell off the share of the minor appears to be correct. Permitting anything to be brought on record now by way of additional evidence as suggested by the learned advocate for the appellants would be filling up of lacuna found in the case pleaded by the appellants, and therefore, at this stage, it cannot be permitted.”