SC: Filing a False FIR Alone does not Amount to Abetment of Suicide  ||  SC: Police Cannot Probe Offences under Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act  ||  SC: UP Gangsters Act Creates no Offence, Perpetuates Violence against Citizens  ||  SC: Caste Abuse in Private Space without Public Presence is not SC/ST Act Offence  ||  SC Reduces Judicial Service Practice Norm to 1 Year; Mandates Training & Clerkship  ||  SC: Wife’s Income does not Reduce Father’s Duty to Maintain Children  ||  SC: Government Cannot Revisit PSC Eligibility Decision When Service Rules Make it Final  ||  Allahabad HC: S.34 IPC Applies if Co-Accused Shares a ‘Functional Relationship’ with Offence  ||  P&H High Court: PSC Cannot Introduce Minimum Interview Marks After Medical Faculty Selection Begins  ||  MP HC: Comprehensive Insurance Doesn't Mean Unlimited Passenger Liability Without Terms    

Gulab Bai and Anr. v. Puniya - (Supreme Court) (07 Oct 1965)

Supreme Court clears confusions about infant Rajasthan High Court’s competence

MANU/SC/0017/1965

Civil

Fifty years ago the Supreme Court faced the unique dilemma of telling a still ‘young’ Rajasthan High Court to become besotted with its appellate authority: probably not the kind of advice it would give today. It held that a decision of the trial court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, is final, unless it is appealed under Section 47 of the Act; similarly, an order passed by a Single judge of the High Court, on appeal from the trial court, is also final, subject to the Division Bench determining its jurisdiction, which it was essentially told to not question so much. The Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the High Court for disposal, determining that in a back and forth of decisions and appeals, each finding contrary to the last, the matter needed perhaps a more just finality. The order must have come as more than just a little relief to the little-mentioned ‘ward’ who had been bounced around between the Respondent ‘real’ parents and the Appellant foster parents who had looked after her for many years. With underlying notes of caste, it was the higher caste Respondents who had placed their daughter in the custody of the lower caste Appellants to “save the child” from whatever misfortune caused the Respondents to lose “some children in their infancy”.

Relevant : Union of India (UOI) vs. Mohindra Supply Company MANU/SC/0004/1961 L. Ram Sarup vs. Mt. Kaniz Ummehani MANU/UP/0056/1936

Tags : HIGH COURT   APPEAL   FINALITY   RAJASTHAN  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved