NEELAM RANI Vs. PARVEEN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matrix of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, respondent-husband Parveen Kumar son of Hardayal, has filed the main case, claiming custody of his minor son Himanshu, invoking the provisions of Sections 7, 17 and 25 of The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act").

(2.) In the wake of notice, petitioner-wife Neelam Rani appeared and filed the application (Annexure P1) for dismissal of the main case, inter-alia, pleading that even as per admission of the husband, Himanshu, minor son of the parties, was residing at Jundla Town and was studying in Partap Public School in District Karnal, so, the Guardian Court at Sirsa did not have the territorial jurisdiction. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the wife prayed that the main petition be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.

(3.) The respondent-husband refuted the prayer of petitioner-wife and filed the reply (Annexure P2), in which, it was admitted that Himanshu, minor son, was studying in Partap Public School at Jundla Town and was living in Jundla Town, District Karnal. However, he has denied the other allegations and pleaded that the Guardian Court at Sirsa has the territorial jurisdiction.