Gold Control Act family definition excludes major son's household from clubbing for ornament possession limits.

Under the Gold Control Act, 1968, the statutory definition of "family" for declaration and permissible possession of ornaments is confined to the husband, wife and one or more minor children, or any two or more of them. Because the definition excludes other persons, a major son and his wife could not be treated as part of the appellant's family for Section 16 purposes. Separate wealth-tax returns filed by the appellant and the major son also supported the finding that they were distinct units, so the two households could not be clubbed and the excess-possession conclusion could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for the purpose of declaration and permissible possession of ornaments under the Gold Control Act, 1968, the appellant's major son and his wife constituted a separate family so that the holdings of the two households could not be clubbed.

Analysis: Under Section 16(1) read with Sections 16(5) and 16(6), a family is entitled to hold up to 4000 gms. without declaration, and the statutory definition of "family" is confined to the husband, wife, and one or more minor children, or any two or more of them. The definition expressly excludes other persons, so a major son and his wife cannot be treated as part of the appellant's family for Section 16 purposes. The separate wealth-tax returns filed by the appellant and his major son also supported the conclusion that they were distinct units and not one Hindu undivided family for this statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The appellant's major son's household was a separate family within Section 16(6), the clubbing of the two families was incorrect, and the excess-possession finding could not stand.

---