S. No.82 Suppl.3 List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No.567/2025 Date of pronouncement:17.12.2025 Uploaded on: 19.12.2025 Mst Neelofar Jan …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr.Ibrahim Meraj, Advocate. V/s Sadiqa Mir and Another … ..Respondent(s) Through : None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT(Oral) 1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged order dated 29.10.2025 passed by learned 4th Additional District Judge (Family Court), Srinagar, whereby application filed by respondent No.1 praying for de-freezing of Bank Accounts bearing Nos. SB-12467 in J&K Bank Branch Soura and SB-6329 J&K Bank Branch Buchpora has been allowed and the aforesaid two bank accounts have been de-frozen. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused record of the case. 3. It appears that an application was made by the petitioner herein under Section 39 of Guardian and Wards Act for removal of the guardian of respondent No.1, who was minor at the relevant p. 2 time. It is also pertinent to mention here that respondent No.2, grandfather of respondent No.1 and father-in-law of the petitioner, was appointed as guardian of the minor and his removal was being sought by the petitioner by virtue of the aforesaid application. In the said application an order came to be passed by learned trial Court on 20.02.2024, whereby in view of the allegations leveled by the parties against each other and in order to safeguard the interests of the minor, the aforesaid bank accounts in which 40% of pay of the petitioner and the pensionary benefits of deceased father of respondent No.1 (minor) were being deposited, were directed to be frozen and it was further directed that if any need arises with regard to the expenditure of the minor, proper permission shall be obtained from the Court for operation of the said accounts. 4. It appears that an application came to be filed by respondent No.2 in his capacity as Guardian of respondent No.1 before learned trial Court on 27.06.2025 on the ground that respondent No.1 has now attained the age of majority and she seeks to manage her financial affairs independently. The said application has been allowed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 29.10.2025 by ordering defreeze of the aforesaid accounts and by allowing respondent No.1 to operate the said accounts independently. 5. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that the said order has been passed without taking into p. 3 consideration the detailed objections filed by the petitioner and the documents placed on record. It has been contended that the details of withdrawal and depositions in the aforesaid two accounts, clearly indicate that there has been misuse of funds and there have been un- explained transactions. It has been contended that as per Section 3 of J&K Majority Act, 1920 AD, a minor whose guardian has been appointed by the Court, would attain majority when he/she completes 21 years of age, but in the present case respondent No.1 has attained the age of 18 years and she is yet to attain 21 years of age. Therefore, it was not open to the learned trial Court to permit respondent No.1 to operate the aforesaid bank accounts independently. 6. The ground urged by the petitioner appears to be misconceived for the reason that even though as per J&K Majority Act,1920 AD, a minor of whose person or property or both a guardian has been appointed, would attain age of majority upon completion of 21 years of age and not before, yet, the said Act stands repealed on coming into force of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 on 31st October, 2019 whereafter the provisions of the Majority Act, 1875 (Central Act) have been extended to UT of Jammu & Kashmir. As per Section 3 of the said Act every person domiciled in India attains age of majority after completing 18 years of age and not before. CM(M) No.567 of 2025 Page 4 of 4 7. Once the Act of 1920 has ceased to be operative in UT of Jammu & Kashmir, the provisions contained in the said Act cannot be made applicable to the present case. So, any person who attains the age of 18 years, irrespective of the fact whether or not guardian has been appointed by the Court in respect of his person or property, would attain age of majority once he/she completes 18 years of age. This position of law has to be given effect from the date the Majority Act, 1875 became applicable to UT of Jammu & Kashmir. The provisions of the repealed Act of 1920 will have no applicability in reckoning the age of majority after the appointed date i.e 31st October, 2019. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is misconceived. 8. Once it is held that respondent No.1 has attained the age of majority, she is free to operate the bank accounts herself in respect whereof respondent No.2 was appointed as her guardian. Learned trial Court has rightly defrozen the accounts of respondent No.1 and allowed her to operate her bank accounts being a major person. 9. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality or impropriety having been committed by the learned trial Court. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 17.12.2025 Sarveeda Nissar Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Sarveeda Nissar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document every page at bottom left side 19.12.2025 11:50