1 2025:CGHC:43319 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 26 of 2023 1 - Laxman Mandavi S/o Shri Joga Mandavi Aged About 28 Years R/o Chhindnar Road, Manjhar Para, Kasoli, Hiranar Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Branch Manager State Bank Of India, Branch Karli Dantewada, Dantewada District Dantewada (C.G.) 2 - General Public Through Collector, Dantewada, District S.B. Dantewada (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. P. K. Tulsyan with Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Advocates For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Nisha Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 26/08/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties this case has been heard finally. RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.09.02 20:18:59 +0530 2 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/applicant challenging order dated 16.12.2022 passed by Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), South Bastar Dantewada, in Civil Suit No.12-A/2022, whereby, application filed by appellant/applicant under Section 7 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 has been dismissed. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant would submits that aforesaid application was filed by the appellant/applicant for his appointment as guardian of minor Janhavi Mandavi as her father Manglu Mandavi, who was posted as Assistant Constable in Police Department has died on 30.10.2018 and her mother Smt. Somdi Mandavi, who was appointed on compassionate ground, has also died on 20.07.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the age of Janhavi Mandavi while filing aforesaid application was 4 years 5 months. He further submits that the aforesaid application has been rejected by Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), South Bastar Dantewada on the ground that a huge amount i.e. Rs.66,65,236/- is deposited in the name of Smt. Somdi Mandavi, since their daughter Janhavi Mandavi is minor aged about 4 years and 5 months, therefore, respondent No.1 is not transferring the said amount to minor Janhavi Mandavi and they are seeking guardianship certificate issued in favour of appellant/applicant, therefore, appellant/applicant has filed application under Section 7 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (henceforth, “Act, 1890”) 3 before the trial Court, which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 16.12.2022 on the ground that other relatives have not been impleaded in the application and the said application has not been filed in a prescribed format as provided under Section 10 of Act, 1890. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submits that since there are various deformities in the application filed by the appellant under Section 7 of the Act, 1890 as other relatives of minor Janhavi Mandavi have not been impleaded as respondent and some other necessary facts have also not been pleaded, therefore, learned counsel for the appellant would submits that this appeal may be allowed by setting-aside impugned order dated 16.12.2022 and appellant may be granted liberty to file a better constituted application under the Act, 1890 for appointment as guardian of minor Janhavi Mandavi, daughter of late Manglu Mandavi and late Smt. Somdi Mandavi. 6. Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has not objected the aforesaid prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the material available on record. 8. Perusal of record shows that since Manglu Mandavi, who was working as Assistant Constable in the Police Department and after his death, his wife Smt. Somdi Mandavi was granted compassionate appointment, and both of them are said to be died 4 on 30.10.2018 and 20.07.2021 respectively, leaving behind their minor daughter Janhavi Mandavi, whose date of birth is said to be 21.08.2017. 9. Since father and mother of the minor Janhavi Mandavi were posted in the Police Department, therefore, in the name of Smt. Somdi Mandavi, huge amount i.e. Rs.66,65,236/- has been deposited with the respondent No.1/State Bank of India, Branch Karli, Dantewada, District Dantewada. Since Janhavi Mandavi is minor, at present aged about 8 years, therefore, it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that amount deposited in the name of her mother - Smt. Somdi Mandavi is not being transferred in the name of minor Janhavi Mandavi and respondent No.1 is seeking Guardianship certificate. For aforesaid purpose, appellant/applicant Laxman Mandavi had filed application under Section 7 of the Act, 1890 for his appointment as guardian of minor Janhavi Mandavi. 10. Perusal of record of learned trail Court shows that neither necessary facts were pleaded in the original application filed by the appellant/applicant under Section 7 of Act, 1890, nor other relatives of minor Janhavi Mandavi had been impleaded in the aforesaid application, because of such deformities learned trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the appellant/applicant. But, since, Janhavi Mandavi is minor aged about 8 years at present and she is being looked after by her relatives, therefore, for her livelihood and other needs like 5 medical, education etc. money is required, therefore, I feel inclined to allow the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant without going into the merit of the case. 11. Consequently, this appeal is allowed, impugned order dated 16.12.2022 passed by Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), South Bastar Dantewada in Civil Suit No.12-A/2022 is set-aside and appellant is granted liberty to file a fresh better constituted application for the said purpose under the Act, 1890/applicable law, within 45 days from today. In the event of filing of afresh application by the appellant, learned trial Court is directed to decide the same in accordance with law, without being influenced from earlier order dated 16.12.2022. 12. With aforesaid observation and direction, this appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ravi Mandavi