6

Mother can act as natural guardian even during father's lifetime if father is absent or not capable.

In this case, the mother applied for certain financial rights as a guardian of her minor child. The law said that the father is the natural guardian “after” the mother. The issue was whether the mother could act as guardian during the father’s lifetime. The Supreme Court interpreted the word “after” in a flexible way. It held that “after” does not always mean after the death of the father. If the father is absent, indifferent, or not capable, the mother can act as guardian. This interpretation supports equality between parents. The case made the law more fair and practical.

13

Welfare (well-being) of the child is the most important factor.

This case involved a custody dispute between parents. The court had to decide who should take care of the children. It held that the welfare of the child is the most important consideration. Legal rights of parents are secondary. The court looked at emotional, educational, and physical needs of the child. It also considered the child’s comfort and stability. The final decision was based on what is best for the child. This case strongly established the welfare principle.

8

Guardian must take court permission for sale or transfer of minor’s property.

In this case, the natural guardian sold the minor’s property without court permission. The issue was whether such a sale is valid. The court held that prior permission of the court is necessary. If not taken, the transaction is not fully valid. It becomes voidable at the option of the minor. This means the minor can cancel the transaction after becoming major. The case protects the property rights of minors.

6
13

Mother can be karta (manager) of Hindu joint family if she is the eldest member.

This case dealt with whether a woman can become the karta of a Hindu joint family. Traditionally, only males were considered for this role. The Delhi High Court examined modern legal principles and equality. It held that if a woman is the eldest member, she can act as karta. This decision supports gender equality. It also aligns with the idea that welfare and capability matter more than gender.

13

Welfare of minor overrides legal rights of parents.

In this case, there was a dispute regarding custody of a minor child. The court examined the situation of both parents. It held that even if one parent has a legal right, it is not final. The welfare of the child is more important. The court considered the child’s comfort, safety, and upbringing. The final decision was based on overall benefit of the child. This case reinforces the welfare principle.

11

De facto guardian has no authority to deal with minor’s property.

In this case, a person who was not a legal guardian sold the minor’s property. The question was whether such a person has legal authority. The court held that a de facto guardian (person acting without legal authority) has no right to deal with property. Such transactions are invalid. This protects minors from misuse of their property.

13

Welfare includes emotional and educational well-being.

This case involved custody of a child after separation of parents. The court examined various factors affecting the child. It held that welfare includes not only physical care but also emotional and educational needs. The child’s happiness and comfort are important. The court made a balanced decision keeping the child’s interest in mind. This case explains the wide meaning of welfare.

13

Child’s preference can be considered depending on age.

In this case, the court considered the opinion of the minor child. The issue was whether a child’s choice should matter. The court held that if the child is mature enough, their preference can be considered. However, it is not final. The court must still ensure that the decision is in the child’s best interest. This case shows how courts balance child’s choice and welfare.