The main legal point established is that when a custody order has been issued under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, any further alteration in custody should be sought from the same court, rendering other courts lacking jurisdiction.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals are directed against the common Judgement passed by the Family Court, in two proceedings initiated before it under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, in respect of the custody of one Varun, a minor child. G. and W. C. No. 73/87 was filed by the grandparents of the said Varun to appoint them as guardians of their grand-child and G and W. C. No. 75/87 was filed by the father of the said Varun to get custody of his son. The first petition came to be dismissed and the second petition came to be allowed and therefore, the grand-parents who happen to be the petitioners in the first petition and respondents in the second petition have preferred these appeals.

( 2 ) THE evidence has been recorded in the first petition G and W. C. No. 73/87 and in the lower Court the parties have been REFERRED TO by virtue of the ranks they had occupied in the 1st petition. For the sake of convenience we will also adopt the same course of reference to the parties, by virtue of their ranks occupied in G and W. C. No. 73/87 or by virtue of their relationship as occasion may demand.

( 3 ) CERTAIN factual events leading up to the filing of the petitions are practically undisputed, though the parties are at variance in respect of the cause or reasons which led up to the said events. We would in the first instance refer to the undisputed events. Usha the daughter of the petitioners was married to the respondent on 15-7-79. Both the respondent and his wife Usha lived together at Calcutta where the respondent was working during the said time till 23-12-79, on which date she left her matrimonial home at Bangalore to reside with her parents. By that time she had become pregnant and on 7-7-80 she gave birth to Varun a male child. Both Usha and her husband respondent filed a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent in the Court of the City Civil Judge, Bombay, in M. J. P. 844/82. On 29-4-82 the Bombay City Civil Court passed the order. It reads :"the Petitioner No. 1 Kongot Ravindran Unni and the Petitioner No. 2 Usha Ravindran Unni jointly pray for a decree of divorce dissolving their marriage solemnired on the Fifteenth day of July one thousand nine hundred and seventy nine at Guruvayurappan Temple, Asthika Samaj, Matunga, Bombay, according to the Hindu Vedict Rites and for an order that the custody of the minor child named Varun do remain with the Petitioner No. 2 and that the Petitioner No. 1 be permitted to see and visit the said minor child at the residence of the Petitioner No. 2 whenever the Petitioner No. 1 desires to do so after giving adequate notice of the date and time of his intended visit to the residence of the Petitioner No. 2 to see the child and for a declaration that the Petitioner No. 2 givesup her claim permanently for the maintenance and/or alimony for herself and for the said minor child Varun and or such other and further orders and directing as may be just equitable and necessary in the circumstances of the case and the Petition being this day called on for hearing and final disposal, the Petitioners appearing by Advocate and upon the Advocate for the Petitioners tendering the Affidavit of the Petitioner No. 1 Kongot Ravindran Unni, herein dated the Nineteenth day of April one thousand nine hundred and eighty two the affidavit of the Petitioner No. 2 Usha Ravindran Unni herein dated the Fifteenth day of April one thousand nine hundred and eighty two reaffirming the consent of the Petitioner to the divorce and applying that the same may be taken on file and upon the said Advocate for the Petitioners stating that the Petitioners have been living separately for a period of more than one year before the date of filing of the Petition that the consent of the Petitioners to the divorce continues and that neither of the Petitioners has withdrawn their consent AND UPON READING that said Affidavits of the Petitioner No. 1 herein dated the Nineteenth day of April one thousand nine hundred and eig