DEEDAR SINGH DHILLAN Vs. PREETPAL SINGH CHADDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 11-10-2012 passed in M.J.C. No. 2/2012 by the XIV Additional District Judge, Bhopal whereby the application submitted by the applicants under section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (herein after referred to as '1890 Act') read with Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed. It is contended that the applicants are the maternal-grand parents of the minors, who are in their custody. The respondent has moved an application under section 25 of the 1890 Act seeking custody of the minor children against the applicants before the District Court at Bhopal. Such an application is not maintainable before the District Court in terms of the provisions of section 7(1)(g) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as '1984 Act') and since there is no scope of interference in respect of the custody of the minor children, as such application is also not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 9 of the 1890 Act, such an application of the respondent was liable to be dismissed but instead the application submitted by the applicants has been rejected, therefore, the revision is required to be filed. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this revision are that the respondent was married to the daughter of the applicants, namely Amardeep Kaur. Their marriage was solemnized on 26-11-2008. Out of the wedlock, late Amardeep Kaur gave birth to triplet sons on 31-3-2011. However, because of the post-delivery problem, she succumbed to death and the respondent was keeping the minor children with him. As contended in the application, the minors are residing at Nagpur and thus an application was made by the applicants for grant of custody of the minor children to them under the provisions of 1890 Act. However they were served with a notice of application submitted under section 25 of the 1890 Act filed by the respondent in the Court of District Judge, Bhopal. Upon service of the notice, they submitted an objection with respect to the maintainability of the application in the District Court at Bhopal on the ground that the minor children were living at Nagpur and since the territorial jurisdiction of the Court where the minor children are ordinarily residing would be attracted in case of grant of custody of the minors, such an application submitted by the respondent before the District Court at Bhopal was not maintainable. However, this objection has been rejected in cryptic manner without looking to the law laid-down by the Apex Court in appropriate manner, therefore, this revision is required to be filed.

(2.) This revision was entertained, interim stay was granted and notice was served. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

(3.) Undisputedly the respondent is the natural father of the minors and is entitled to claim the custody of the minors. Section 25 of the 1890 Act specifically prescribes title of guardian to custody of ward. Provisions of section 25 are materially important, therefore, they are quoted hereinbelow: