The revision being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed by HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE in the case of AKHILESH ANJANA V. KAVITA ANJANA through HON’BLE JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts of the case are that the respondent/applicant has filed an application under Section 7/25 of the Act, 1956 before the Court below against the petitioners/non-applicants seeking custody of her minor child i.e., non-applicant No.2 namely Aditya Anjana. She has submitted that she and non-applicant No.1 were married on 30/01/2013. Out of their wedlock non-applicant No.2 was born who is presently aged 3 years and is living with non-applicant No.1. On disputes arising between them, on 02/03/2020 non-applicant No.1 asked the applicant to leave the matrimonial home and custody of non-applicant No.2 was refused to be handed over to her. Since the applicant refused to leave, nonapplicant No.1 took her in a four-wheeler and left her at her parent’s place and snatched non-applicant No.2 from her who has ever since been residing with him. In her application the applicant has stated that since she is residing at Mahindpur, District-Ujjain the Court at Mahindpur has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application. Upon service of summons upon them the non-applicants entered appearance and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the application under Section 7/25 of the Act, 1956 on the ground that Court at Mahidpur, District-Ujjain has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same.
In this case, as per the pleadings made by the applicant in her application under Section 7/25 of the Act, 1956, on 02/03/2020 non-applicant No.1 took her and non-applicant No.2 to the house of parents of the applicant and forcibly left her over there. At that time the nonapplicant No.2 was with the applicant who was forcibly snatched by non-applicant No.1 and was taken by him to his house and has since then been staying there against his wishes. Section 9 (1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 reads as under: – “9. 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.” In the present case also non-applicant No.2 who is aged about 3 years is expected to be with the custody of his mother i.e., the applicant. The words “ordinarily resides” shall have to be construed as the place where the applicant resides before presentation of the petition. In her petition the applicant has specifically alleged circumstances under which the non-applicant No.2 was forced out of her custody by non-applicant No.1. In such case, the place of residence of non-applicant No.2 has to be construed as the place where the applicant is residing before presentation of the application i.e., Tehsil Mahindpur, District-Ujjain. As per the applicant, the non-applicant No.2 has been removed by non-applicant No.1 from her custody prior to filing of the application for guardianship. The ordinarily place of residence of non-applicant No.2 hence would be the place where the local guardian i.e., applicant is residing. It cannot be disputed that since non-applicant No.2 is aged 3 years, applicant would be his natural guardian. As a result, it is held that the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC filed by the non-applicants. The revision being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SHREYA NIDHI