Despite Divorce, Muslim Wife Entitled To Maintenance If Not Remarried And Unable To Maintain Herself: Patna High Court Quantum of Penalty Is the Domain of the Disciplinary Authority, But Courts Can Interfere If It Shocks the Conscience: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Reversion of Bank Officer Accused Has No Right to Dictate Manner of Investigation: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Court-Monitored Probe Even in Breach, Advance Amount Must Be Refunded Unless Actual Damages Are Proven: Kerala High Court Registered Sale Deeds Are Public Notice; Suit Filed Without Contesting Them Is a Sham Litigation: Supreme Court Reiterates Scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC IBC | Supreme Court Upholds Primacy of CoC’s Commercial Wisdom in DHFL Resolution Plan, Restores NCLT Order Security Guard Not Covered Under Insurance Policy; Terms of Private Contract Must Be Strictly Construed: Bombay High Court If You Think You Can Call Judges ‘Goondas’ and Walk Away, Think Again: Allahabad High Court Sends Advocate Asok Pande to Jail for Criminal Contempt Victim Turning Hostile Not a Ground for Bail in Serious Offences: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail to Attempted Murder Accused Additional Evidence Cannot Be Refused Without Considering Its Impact On Merits Of The Case: Calcutta High Court Allows Revisional Application In Eviction Appeal Justice Better Served Through Compensation After Two Decades: Kerala High Court Modifies Sentence in Assault Case Section 348 BNSS Not Meant to Repair Prosecution’s Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Plea to Summon Additional Evidence 7 Years into Trial Failure of Vasectomy Does Not Ipso Facto Prove Negligence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Overturns Compensation in Unwanted Birth Case Purpose of Acquisition Cannot Justify Lower Compensation When Lands Are Comparable: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Dharuhera Land Acquisition by Applying De-Escalation and Comparable Sale Principle The Defence Under Places of Worship Act Opens Door for ASI's Impleadment:- Supreme Court in Krishna Janmabhoomi Dispute Public Jobs Aren’t Hereditary Titles: Supreme Court Strikes Down Bihar Rule Allowing Chaukidars to Nominate Their Children for Government Jobs Supreme Court Upholds Rajasthan Electricity Commission’s Power to Regulate Open Access Even Involving Inter-State Supply: Captive Power Producers Must Comply with Grid Discipline Conviction Can Be Based on Related Witness If Testimony Is Natural and Trustworthy: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Life Sentence in 2000 Murder Case Taunts for Not Bringing Dowry May Not Be Demands, But Can Still Amount to Cruelty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refuses to Quash 498A, Domestic Violence Case Against Army Officer Contract Labour System Can Be Challenged Despite Past Settlements: Gujarat High Court Validates Industrial Dispute Reference Against Kalptaru Projects Prima Facie Evidence Shows Nayeem Ahmad Khan Was Strategist In Conspiracy With Hurriyat And Terror Groups To Orchestrate Secessionist Violence”: Delhi High Court Denies Bail In UAPA Case Single Administrative Member Can Decide Minor Penalty Cases: Calcutta High Court Recalls Its Own Ruling, Upholds Jurisdiction of CAT Member Sitting Alone Mere Selection Does Not Confer a Vested Right to Appointment: Bombay High Court Upholds Cancellation of Assistant Professor Recruitment Over Alleged Irregularities Driving Unregistered Vehicle Alone Doesn’t Prove Negligence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Amputee in Bus Accident

Properties of orphans must not be allowed to be preyed upon by unscrupulous relatives like vultures: Delhi High Court, framing landmark guidelines for safeguarding orphans’ property rights.

07 April 2025 3:04 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


“Courts Must Be Zealous Guardians of Minor Orphans’ Property” - In a landmark decision Delhi High Court has laid down an exhaustive legal framework to protect the movable and immovable properties of orphaned minors. Justice Subramonium Prasad issued a scathing critique of systemic lapses and directed urgent coordination between executive authorities, courts, and welfare bodies under the parens patriae doctrine to act in the best interest of these children.

The petitions were filed by minor children who had tragically lost their parents under traumatic circumstances—one set of minors saw their mother murdered by their intoxicated father, who then died by suicide; another set suffered years of abuse by their father, who later died while their mother abandoned them. Both sets of minors were placed in child care institutions under the supervision of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Delhi. These children approached the High Court fearing that their deceased parents’ properties were being misappropriated by relatives.

Justice Subramonium Prasad took cognizance of the fact that “these incidents of violence have left the Petitioners extremely disturbed and they have been affected both mentally and physically”. Despite repeated directions from CWC to secure the children’s property rights, bureaucratic inertia and legal delays continued to jeopardize their future.

The legal questions revolved around: Whether District Magistrates and the State had a legal obligation under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, to secure the assets of orphaned minors.
What procedural safeguards are necessary to prevent exploitation of these children's properties.
The Court emphasized that the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and Family Courts Act, 1984 collectively create a responsibility upon the State, courts, and welfare bodies to safeguard the rights of minors, especially in absence of natural guardians.
Referring to Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, the Court declared: “Such long adjournments defeat the whole purpose of Section 10... which is for taking immediate action to safeguard the properties of such persons lest it is frittered away.”
Justice Prasad criticized the existing system as being “callous” and noted the “lack of coordination between various organs of the State, be it Courts or the Executive”, which resulted in orphans’ properties being “frittered away by relatives or strangers.”
The Court accepted comprehensive Guidelines framed by the Child Welfare Committee dated 09.04.2024. Some of the key observations and directions include: “Courts must be zealous guardians for the protection of the properties of minors and ensure that properties are not frittered by unscrupulous relatives who like vultures want to prey on the meagre belongings...”

Guidelines for Courts:
•    The Family Court must appoint guardians within four weeks from receiving the application.
•    Courts must avoid adjournments exceeding one week.
•    A separate counsel should be appointed for the child, and the case must remain pending until the child attains majority.
•    Courts must mandate annual accounting by the guardian and oversee the same.
•    Adoption proceedings must not be hindered by pending property matters.

Guidelines for District Magistrates:
•    Must file applications under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act within 7 days of receiving information.
•    Take interim protection orders under Section 12 to preserve assets.
•    Conduct quarterly meetings with CWC and child (if 14+) to review asset status.

Role of Other Stakeholders:
•    The judgment delineates specific responsibilities for:
•    Child Welfare Committees
•    Child Care Institutions
•    District Child Protection Units
•    Police Authorities
•    District Legal Services Authorities

Each stakeholder is tasked with preparing detailed asset reports, securing succession and legal heir certificates, and preventing misuse of children’s inheritance.
The Delhi High Court’s judgment is a watershed moment in the legal protection of orphaned children. By institutionalizing timelines, fixing accountability, and issuing sweeping procedural reforms, the Court has sent a strong message to the administration and judiciary alike.
In Justice Subramonium Prasad’s words: “The case of children who are helpless victims of circumstances must be dealt with compassion... the Courts must ensure that the directions are scrupulously followed.”
This decision will serve as a model framework for other states and judicial forums handling vulnerable minors’ rights across the country.

Date of Decision: April 2, 2025
 

Similar News