TILAK RAJ KAPOOR Vs. ASHA KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 47 (b) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (No. VIII of 1890) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated September 18, 1978 by which she dismissed his application under Section 25 of the Act. It may be stated here that the learned counsel for the father (applicant before the District Judge) stated before her that it is not necessary to return the application for presentation to the proper court as another application will be submitted in the court at Bharatpur if the father-applicant so likes. The appellant submitted an application under Section 25 of the Act against the respondent for return of the minor son of the parties who had completed seven years in March 1978, to his custody. In para 4 of the application, it was mentioned that the minor, at the time of its presentation, was living with his mother at Bharatpur. It was also admitted by the learned counsel for the father-applicant before the learned District Judge that after 1974, the minor has resided and has been residing at Bharatpur and that for two months, he remained at the house of the parents of the mother. This application under Section 25 of the Act was submitted in the court at Jodhpur. An objection was raised that in view of the averments made by the father-applicant in the application, it is clear that the minor 'ordinarily resides' within the jurisdiction of the District Judge at Bharatpur, and therefore, the learned District Judge at Jodhpur cannot entertain and decide the application. This objection prevailed with the learned District Judge, Jodhpur and she held that the Court of the District Judge at Jodhpur has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. In these circumstances, she dismissed the application of the father-applicant by her order dated September 18, 1978. The father-applicant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at some length. His only contention is that the principle where the minor 'ordinarily resides' which is mentioned in Section 9 of the Act, is not applicable to the applications which are filed under Section 25 of the Act. I have given my most anxious and thoughtful consideration to the contention raised and have reached the conclusion that it is devoid of force. I may reproduce here Section 25 (1) of the Act, which is material for the disposal of this appeal,--

(3.) The result is, that there is no merit in this appeal and it is, accordingly, rejected summarily.