RAJEEV S.R. AND OTHERS Vs. ANOOP VIJAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides.

(2.) Respondent married petitioners' daughter and a girl child is born in that relationship. Subsequently, petitioners' daughter committed suicide. It is averred in the petition that the child is ordinarily residing with the grant parents in their family house. Both the petitioners and respondent filed separate original petitions under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (in short, the Act) before two different family courts claiming custody of the minor child. Petitioners filed O.P.(G and W) No.426 of 2017 before the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. The respondent filed O.P.(G and W) No.662 of 2017 before the Family Court, Thrissur. Annexures A1 and A3 are the respective petitions. Petitioners would contend that right from the death of their daughter, the child is residing with them. It is also contended that the respondent/father of the child is working abroad and he is conducting the case through a power of attorney.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent contended that going by Section 9(1) of the Act, the District Court, where the minor ordinarily resides, is having jurisdiction to entertain an application. According to him, the child should be presumed to be living with its father, who is the natural guardian. To support this contention, the decisions reported in Vasu v. Muralidharan [2009 (1) KHC 443] , Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1) KHC 1] and Chandra Kanta v. Superintendent of Police [2000 KHC 2536] are pressed into service. In Vasu's case, a Division Bench of this Court considered the scope of Section 9 of the Act and held thus: