SANJEEV BHAGAT Vs. SANGEETA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is husband's petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution with a prayer that the order dated 3.5.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala allowing the wife-respondent No. 1 visiting rights to the son be set aside.

(2.) THE wife-respondent has filed an application under Section 25 under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (for brevity 'the Act') with a prayer that husband-petitioner be directed to handover the custody of the minor son i.e. master Ankur to her, who is aged about 9 years. Reply to the petition as well as replication were filed and various objections in the reply filed by the husband-petitioner were taken including the objection that the Courts at Ambala do no possess territorial jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act. It has been submitted that under Section 9, an application could have been filed before the District Judge having jurisdiction over the place where the minor ordinarily resides. According to the averments made in the reply, the stand taken by the husband-petitioner is that the minor child ordinarily resides at Amritsar and the Courts at Ambala would have jurisdiction. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala, while exercising jurisdiction as a guardian Judge has passed the order allowing interim prayer of wife-respondent No. 1 to visit her son. The operative part of the order reads as under :-

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel, I do not feel persuaded to entertain this petition because the Civil Judge has allowed interim prayer of the wife- respondent and has permitted her to visit her son. In such like matters Courts are required to adopt an approach reflecting parental attitude. It necessarily implies that the paramount consideration is welfare of the child. The Courts at Ambala has passed an interim order but the issue with regard to jurisdiction is yet to be decided. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.