MANJU Vs. AMIT HOODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties are estranged spouses who are fighting over the custody of their minor daughter. To obtain guardianship of the female child the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'father'), filed a petition under the relevant Legislation. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'mother') entered appearance. On 19.6.2007, the learned District Judge, Rohtak, recorded the following proceedings :

(2.) AT the very outset, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the mother argued that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to try the petition in view of the Notification dated 11.06.1996 vide which this Court had empowered the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at the District Headquarters (and the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at the Sub Divisional Headquarters) to try the cases under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). That notification is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference :

(3.) THE plea was contested by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the father. He argued that the provisions of Section 4-A of the Act, do not take away the plenary jurisdiction of the District Judge to try the petition under the Guardians and Wards Act and that the notification above quoted would come into play only if the District Judge is inclined to refrain from trying the matter and to transfer it. In that eventuality, the argument proceeded, the matter could be tried only by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at the Headquarters and the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at the Sub Divisional Headquarters.