(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 9. 10. 2007 of learned guardianship Judge whereby he disposed of the preliminary issue regarding his jurisdiction and held that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the husband.
(2.) A perusal of order passed by the learned Guardianship Judge shows that the Guardianship Judge had not gone through the facts stated in the petition of the husband properly and taken note of wrong facts. In para 10. 1 of the petition, the husband had stated that the petitioner was married with the respondent on 12. 12. 1996 at Sonepat, whereas the Guardianship Judge noted in his order that the marriage was solemnized in Delhi on 12. 12. 2996. In para 18 of the petition the husband had stated that he left Delhi on 1. 2. 2006 and went to settle at Dehradun. The response filed by the wife shows that at that time husband and wife along with children were living at Delhi and husband left his entire family in Delhi and shifted to Dehradun. In Dehradun parents of the husband were living. The wife and children later on joined him at Dehradun. It is admitted by the petitioner that he took a house on rent in Dehradun and started living with his wife and children in the rented accommodation at dehradun on 10. 7. 2006. Children were admitted in school at Dehradun (para 20 of the petition ). In para 22 of the petition, it was stated that he was compelled to leave the rented house in Dehradun on 25. 7. 2006 and he left Dehradun and came to Delhi and started living in Delhi, his wife and children at that time were in dehradun.
(3.) FROM Dehradun his wife and children came to Sonepat where her parents were living and thereafter she started residing at Sonepat along with children. She filed a criminal complaint against the husband at Sonepat. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. at Sonepat. An FIR was also registered at Sonepat. Although these facts are undisputed but the learned guardianship Judge did not take note of any of these facts and in his order he recorded that both the parties lastly lived together at their house at Sector 9, rohini, Delhi. Obviously, the learned Guardianship Judge did not care to read the petition of the husband carefully before passing the order. Thereafter, he went on to decide the jurisdiction and observed that the "ordinary place of residence" of the two children viz. Master Dhruv Rana and Baby Dhirty Rana had to be considered as Delhi. Both the children had crossed the age of 5 years and as such by virtue of Section 6 (a) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, they were out of the purview of the provision that they should be ordinarily living with the mother. Father was the natural guardian and the children were constrained to live at Sonepat with their mother since she had taken them with her. Otherwise, ordinarily they were supposed to be residing with their father which was the matrimonial house of the respondent and by observing thus, he dismissed the application and decided the issue of jurisdiction in favour of delhi Court.