AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
As to guardianship of property the order of the Court below will stand. We are not satisfied from the affidavit of the appellants that any evidence
was tendered but refused. It is open to them to file a fresh petition for showing that the father is unfit and for his removal from guardianship at any
time they like.
As to guardianship of the person, agreeing with the view taken by my brother (Jackson. J.,) in C.M.A. No. 127 of 1924, I think the petitioner in
the lower Court (respondent) cannot fee appointed or declared a guardian u/s 19 of Act VIII of 1890. If the Legislature intended that the
prohibition in. Section 19 should apply only to persons other than the husband in : Clause (a) and father in Clause (b) the fact ought to lie made
clear.
But there is no objection to an order directing the return of the child to the respondent if the District Judge thinks fit to do so. He has not applied
his mind to this aspect of the case. The case will go lack for disposal by him. Bach party will bear its own costs in this Court.