SANDHYA GUNTAE Vs. RAVI KANT GUNTAE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27th July, 1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur, who was looking after the work of the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur during the latter's absence.

(2.) On 27th July, 1998 the file of Civil Case No. 38/98 Ravi Kant v. Smt. Sandhya pending in the Family Court, Jodhpur was submitted before the District Judge, Jodhpur. The defendant Smt. Sandhya was called, but she did not appear. The plaintiff Ravi Kant, father of Chinmaya, a minor, was present. The learned District Judge in view of the facts stated in the order made an interim order to the effect that the custody of Chinmaya be handed over to the plaintiff Ravi Kant. It was further directed by him that a copy of the order be sent to the defendant Smt. Sandhya by registered A/D through Court and the case was directed to be listed on 5th August, 1998. On 18th September, 1998 the defendant Smt. Sandhya appeared in person and she sought an adjournment, which was granted and case was directed to be listed on 3rd November, 98. On the same day, the defendant applied for copies. Before the appearance of Smt. Sandhya on 18-9-98, the Court fixed 3-11-98 vide order dated 5th August, 98. On 18-9-98 Smt. Sandhya was given opportunity to file written statement/her reply on 10th October, 98 and it was further directed that the plaintiff Ravi Kant would be permitted to meet his son Chinmaya during the period from 27th September, 98 to 5th October, 98. By the aforesaid order, defendant Sandhya was further directed to hand over the custody of her son Chinmaya to the plaintiff in accordance with the order dated 27th Sep- tember, 98.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned District Judge, Jodhpur had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 27th July, 98 as well as the order dated 18-9-98, because he was not duly appointed by the State Government as a Judge of the Family Court, Jodhpur. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit filed u/S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the application filed u/S. 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, in the Family Court, Jodhpur are unfounded and the petitioner had no previous notice of both of them and the impugned order was passed without any notice to the petitioner. He has therefore, prayed that this revision petition be admitted and the impugned order passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur while purporting to look after the work of Family Court be set aside.