PUNAM GAUR Vs. BAJRANG GAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Bajrang Gaur filed suit (No.60/2018) under Sec. 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 against his wife the appellant herein for claiming custody of their minor son master -S- in Family Court No.1, Jodhpur. Notices of the application were treated to have been served on account of refusal to accept attributed to the appellant. The suit preferred by the respondent was proceeded ex-parte and decreed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.1, Jodhpur vide judgment dtd. 16/4/2019.

(2.) The appellant herein moved the Family Court No.1, Jodhpur by way of an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC with a prayer for setting aside the ex-parte decree dtd. 16/4/2019 taking a specific plea that the Court at Jodhpur had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit because admittedly the minor child was residing with the appellant within the jurisdiction of District Judge, Merta. The appellant also pleaded that the notices which were returned with a remark of the appellant's refusal, had been procured by practicing fraud. It was also alleged that on 5/10/2018, the learned Family Court fixed the next date in the case as 7/12/2019 which was then scored out and changed to 7/12/2018 and thus, there has been an impropriety in deciding the suit. The learned Family Court, however, rejected the application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC by order dtd. 18/3/2020.

(3.) The appellant has preferred appeal No.1212/2020 for assailing the order of rejection of her application under Order 9 Rule 10 CPC dtd. 18/3/2020. She has also challenged the judgment dtd. 16/4/2019 decreeing the suit filed by the respondent under Sec. 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 by filing appeal No.1310/2020.