Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity Law of Limitation Binds All Equally, Including the State: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Petition with 5743 Days’ Delay Once Selected, All Are Equals: Allahabad High Court Slams State for Withholding Pay Protection From Later Batches of Ex-Servicemen Constables Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen "Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

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
 

Latest Legal News