(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Una, whereby he rejected the petition filed by the Petitioner solely on the ground that the Court at Una had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.
(2.) THE undisputed facts are that the Petitioner herein was married to the Respondent at Una and out of this wedlock two children were born. The Petitioner alleged that she was maltreated by her husband and thereafter she left the house of her husband and came to her parental home. Admittedly, the matrimonial home is at Kullu and not at Una. It is also not disputed that the daughter is living with the mother and the son, who is more than five years old, is living with the father. The application was filed for custody of the minor son. This application has been rejected on the ground that since the minor son resides at Kullu, it is only Court at Kullu had jurisdiction.
(3.) THIS question is no longer in res integra. This Court in Himanshu Mahajan V/s. Rashu Mahajan and Ors. 2007 (3) ShimLC 399 dealt with a case wherein the application had been filed under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 but while deciding the case this Court specifically made reference to Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and after considering a number of authorities on the point held as follows: