DR. ARUN KANT Vs. REKHA TANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application is allowed as prayed for.

(2.) While assailing the impugned order dated February 15, 2017, it has been argued with vehemence by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of filing of petition, the minor was residing at G003, D-1, Tower, Paras Panorama, Kharar, District Mohali and in view of Section 9 of the Act, 1890 as well as ratio of law highlighted in case "Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo, 2011 (6) Supreme Court Cases 479 ; "Pooja Bahadur v. Uday Bahadur, 1999 (2) Apex Court Journal 211 , the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh Court is barred. In the instant case is an undisputed fact that minor at present is residing with his father i.e. in the area of Sub-Division Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali). The dismissal of an application by the learned trial court vide impugned order dated February 15, 2017 is absolutely against the settled provisions of law as well as ratio of law laid down in the above referred authorities.

(3.) This Court has given a deep thought to the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner but does find any legal and factual substance therein.