MEENAKSHI TANWAR Vs. SIDDHARTHPAL TANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant- wife under Sec. 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the order dtd. 8/2/2019 passed by learned Judge, Family Court No. 2, Jaipur, whereby the application filed by the appellant-wife under Sec. (Sic Order) 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant-wife argued that the learned Family Court while passing the impugned order did not consider the mandatory provisions of law while dismissing the application filed by the appellant-wife under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned Family Court while passing the impugned order has failed to consider that the respondent-husband in the plaint has mentioned that the minor is residing and under study at Shivgunj, District Sirohi since 2017 and prior to it, the minor was residing and under study at Udaipur in the year 2016 and the respondent- husband knowing well all these facts filed the petition seeking custody and declaration of valid guardian in the year 2017 before the learned Family Court. Thus the petition filed by the respondent-husband before the learned Family Court at Jaipur seeking custody and declaration of valid guardian is barred by law as per provisions of Sec. 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 ('the Act of 1890' for short) which is mandatory in nature. And provisions of Sec. 26 of the Act of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act of 1955' for short) do not supersede the provisions of Sec. 9 of the Act of 1890. The learned Family Court rejected the application of the appellant-wife completely on perverse finding.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant-wife and gone through the impugned order dtd. 8/2/2019 passed by the learned Family Court.