PIYALI DAS GUPTA Vs. SHANTANU DAS GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE impugned order of 18th January, 2014 petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC stands dismissed in proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Rejection of the respondent's petition under Section 7 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act was sought on the ground of the lack of territorial jurisdiction while relying upon Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act.

(2.) AT the hearing of this petition, learned counsel for petitioner had drawn the attention of this Court to Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act and had submitted that the Court within whose jurisdiction a minor child ordinarily resides can deal with such an application and in the instant case, the minor child is residing in Malaysia since the year 2012 and prior thereto, he was residing with his mother i.e., petitioner in Gurgaon and the Courts at Delhi have no territorial jurisdiction. Attention of this Court was drawn to paragraph No. 60 of respondent's petition under Section 7 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 which reads as under: -

(3.) ON the contrary, learned counsel for respondent had supported the impugned order and had submitted that petitioner had taken the minor child of the parties to Malaysia only for a period of one year and just to deprive respondent of the custody of the minor child and to defeat this petition and the child of the parties is being illegally kept in Malaysia. It was submitted that the powers of this Court are very wide and cannot be restricted to Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 and this Court ought to exercise its discretion to ensure that respondent's petition is not rendered infructuous due to clever tactics adopted by petitioner. To contend so, reliance is placed upon the judgment in Kamla vs. Bhanu Mal : AIR 1956 Allahabad 328.