Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KM. RADHA DEVI & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Km. Radha Devi & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 15051 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 5113 (22 March 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 11.1.2007 passed by the revisional Court while rejecting the application 42-A of one of the petitioner Sri Ram Bhullan Upadhyay the brother of the deceased-father of the minors for being appointed as their guardian by substituting  the present natural guardian the mother with whom admittedly the children are living and are being taken care off holding that Smt. Shyama Devi being mother is the only one entitled for the guardianship of her children. It is also an admitted case that the applicant Sri Ram Bhullan Upadhyay had entered into a litigation regarding property with the deceased younger brother father of the minor children for whose guardianship he has applied for by way of substitution. The application was moved on the ground that the mother of the minor children was wasting the property of her late husband and was not taking proper care of the children and that the minor children had filed a declaratory suit for their maintenance against their mother.

I have perused the record and find from the impugned order itself that the minor children had subsequently moved an application before the revisional Court that they did not want to press the revision with the proceedings in the said maintenance suit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show illegality or perversity or any error apparent on the face of the impugned order. I do not find it to be a fit case for exercising my extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

March 22, 2007

Hasnain

wp.15051.07


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.