NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court is set to explore the possibility of a policy to deal with the property of children who have lost both of their parents. Hearing a plea by two children who lost their parents, a single-bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad appointed Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan as an amicus curiae, to assist the court by giving his suggestions to lay down a standard procedure while addressing cases of such nature.
The court was informed that the children’s father killed their mother in September last year and then died by suicide. The children have been put up at Udayan Ghar for Boys by the Child Welfare Committee. The relatives of the children had expressed their willingness to take the children but the children refused to go with the relatives, the court noted.
The petitioners have approached the high court via the children’s home stating that the properties belonging to their parents are being frittered away and that they have no other alternative but to approach the court and invoke parens patriae jurisdiction (parent of the nation jurisdiction) to secure their interest. Seeking the response of the city government on the petition, the court granted two weeks to the authorities to file a reply. The matter will be further heard on December 6.
“Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior Advocate, who is present in court, is requested to assist the court by giving his valuable inputs to lay down a policy in cases of this nature,” the court added.
Refuses to hear plea on reopening Roshanara Club The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition seeking reopening of the century-old Roshanara Club which was sealed by the Delhi Development Authority in September this year, noting that it has already directed the authority to devise a scheme to run it. Hearing the plea by a group of members of the club, a bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma noted that the Supreme court has also refused to restore the possession with the earlier management and the issue of operating the club was already pending before the high court. “As this court is already dealing with the issue of running the club, no interim order can be granted in the present petition,” the bench observed.
