K.U.POOVIAH @ VIVEK Vs. NAMITHA POOVIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the learned III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, who, by the impugned order has held that he has jurisdiction to decide the case. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnised according to the Hindu rites and customs on 24.04.1994. The marriage having consummated, the first child Aditi, was born on 05.06.1998 and the second child Vidushi, was born on 17.09.2003. Misunderstanding having arisen between the spouses, they are living separately from 2010. The petitioner is residing at Lakshmi Estate, Polibetta P.O., South Coorg-571215 and the respondent is residing at No. 22/2, Alfred Street, Richmond Town, Bangalore-560025.

(2.) Writ Petition (HC) No. 114/2012 filed by the respondent against the petitioner and two others, to issue a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, directing the petitioner to cause the production of the person of detenu viz. Vidushi, aged about 8 years 9 months, before the Court and handover the detenu to her legal custody having been taken up and the petitioner having been directed to appear before Court on 25.07.2012 along with Vidushi, after questioning the child, the matter was adjourned to 14.08.2012 and on the said day the writ petition was disposed of with an observation that it is a matter within the domain of the Family Court which should look into all the aspects of the matter, if so advised, for seeking custody of the child.

(3.) On 02.08.2012, the respondent filed G & WC. No. 163/2012, under Ss. 7 and 17 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (for short 'the Act') read with S. 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, in the Family Court at Bangalore, against the petitioner, to pass a decree, declaring and appointing her as the legal guardian of the two minor children and grant her the permanent custody by restraining permanently the petitioner from removing the custody of Aditi and by a mandatory injunction to handover to her custody Vidushi and for grant of consequential reliefs. Petitioner filed the statement of objections and opposed the claim of the respondent for custody of the children.