C NARASARAJU Vs. S RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward with this revision petition aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2009 passed by the Court below dismissing the I.A.No. 4176 of 2009 in OP No. 1109 of 2009 filed by him.

(2.) The Original Petition was filed by the respondent herein under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, praying to grant the custody of his minor son Sukresh.

(3.) According to the revision petitioner, he is the father-in-law of the respondent herein. The revision petitioner's daughter namely C.N. Shilpa was given in marriage to the respondent herein on 07.11.2003 and out of the wedlock the minor Sukresh, male, was born on 06.04.2005, however, during the child birth, the daughter of the revision petitioner and wife of the respondent herein namely C.N. Shilpa died. After the death of his daughter, the revision petitioner has been bringing up the minor child in Mysore. In fact, the revision petitioner also admitted the minor child in L.K.G. at Vidya Jothi School at Nadanahalli, Banur Road, Mysore where the minor child is presently studying. According to the revision petitioner, the minor child was brought up, from the date of his birth, in Mysore, therefore, if at all, the respondent can seek custody of the child by filing appropriate application before the competent Court at Mysore and the Original Petition filed by the respondent seeking custody of the Minor Child at Madras is not maintainable. Therefore, he filed the application in I.A. No. 4176 of 2009 before the Court below under Section 9(3) of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 praying to pass an order returning the original petition filed by the respondent herein to be presented before the proper Court having jurisdiction for adjudication of the matter in controversy between the parties hereto. According to the revision petitioner, the court below at Madras has no jurisdiction to entertain the original petition filed by the respondent herein and if the proceedings are allowed to continue at Madras, he will be highly prejudiced. The Court below, without considering the jurisdictional issue, has dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner on erroneous grounds. Therefore, challenging the order of dismissal passed by the court below, the present revision petition has been filed.