Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. LAXMI DEVI versus KUNWAR PAL

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Laxmi Devi v. Kunwar Pal - FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 524 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 8912 (3 May 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

           Court No. 24  

First Appeal From Order No. 524   of 2006

Smt. Laxmi Devi   ................  ........Defendant-Appellant.

Vs.

Kunwar Pal   ......... Plaintiff- petitioner.

***

Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J

1. In this case,  under ''The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890'  (hereinafter called the ''Act'),the dispute was  whether the application for custody of children lay at Saharanpur in U.P.  or at Ludhiyana in Punjab? The husband-respondent who  made an application  being Misc. Civil  Case No. 101 of 2003  under Section 25 of the aforesaid Act for the custody of the minor children  resides in District Saharanpur and he filed the application for custody of children in Saharanpur Court. The Opp. Party- appellant  ( here) who  resides in Ludhiyana,  stated in her reply that the application will lie in Ludhiyana and not at Saharanpur because children are residing with hear at Ludhiyana.

2. The learned Ist Addl. District   Judge , Saharanpur vide its order dated 4.12.2006  on basis of the averments, in the application upheld the contention of the husband that the jurisdiction lay in Court at Saharanpur and that is how this appeal by the appellant wife.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The Rule about jurisdiction as contained in Section 9 (1) of the ''Act'  and which is relevant here, is  as follows:-

"9(i) Court having jurisdiction to entertain application:- (1) If the application is with respect to the guardianship of the person of the minor, it shall be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides".

5. The question for determination , therefore, was that as to where the children whose custody was claimed ordinarily resides.

6. The learned District Judge, Saharanpur decided that Saharanpur Court has jurisdiction  and while taking this view, he has stated that the averments of the plaint are  the decisive  factor  to ascertain jurisdiction  and that is why he decided the issue infavour of the applicant-respondent.

7. It is difficult to agree with the reasonings given by the learned Addl. District Judge, Saharanpur for the reason that the principle which the learned Ist Addl. District Judge, Saharanpur followed is aptly applicable in case of a plaint and not for an Application. Therefore, it is strange to find that in presence of specific provision how to determine jurisdiction without there being any affidavit or any document with regard to the fact as to where the children ordinarily resided, the matter was decided, assuming many things.

8. Before the court decides, where the children ordinarily resided, it was necessary that there should have been some evidence in the shape of affidavits or documents to be able to come to some conclusion .  In this case, there was no evidence whatsoever and still the learned trial court decided the question of jurisdiction.

9. The case must, therefore, go back to the trial court so that an opportunity may be given to the parties to file evidence in the form of documents and affidavit so that the matter be  properly decided.

10. The appeal, therefore, succeeds  and is allowed  and the case is remanded back to the learned  Ist Addl. District Judge, Saharanpur  for providing an opportunity to the parties to file evidence  on the issue involved  in the case and to decide the question of jurisdiction afresh in accordance with law.

11. Costs made easy.  

Dt: 3.5.2006

  n.u.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.