Statutory definition of family under Gold Control law barred clubbing a major son and his wife for declaration purposes.

Section 16(1) read with Section 16(5) of the Gold (Control) Act permits a family to hold ornaments up to the prescribed limit without declaration, but Section 16(6) confines "family" to husband, wife and one or more minor children, or any two or more of them. A major son and his wife therefore could not be clubbed with the appellant's household for declaration purposes. The separate wealth tax returns also supported that they were distinct units and not one undivided family under the Act. The contrary view ignored the express statutory definition, so the seizure based on clubbing the two families was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for the purpose of Section 16 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, the appellant's major son and his wife constituted a separate family entitled to hold ornaments separately up to the statutory limit without declaration.

Analysis: Section 16(1) read with Section 16(5) permits a family to hold and possess ornaments up to the prescribed limit without declaration, and Section 16(6) gives a special and restricted definition of "family" as husband, wife and one or more minor children, or any two or more of them. On that definition, a major son and his wife cannot be clubbed with the appellant's family for the purpose of declaration. Separate wealth tax returns also supported the position that the appellant and his major son were distinct units and not one undivided family for this purpose. The adjudicating authority's contrary approach treated persons outside the statutory definition as part of the same family and ignored the express language of Section 16(6).

Conclusion: The appellant's major son and his wife were a separate family for purposes of Section 16, and the excess seizure based on clubbing the two families could not stand.

---