MANMOHAN, J (Oral)

1. Present civil revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure challenging order dated 13th March, 2009 whereby the Guardianship Court has held that it has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try respondent’s petition.

2. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for petitioner contends that Delhi Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the respondent-wife’s petition under Sections 7 and 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for custody of the two minor children of petitioner and respondent. He submits that children are presently residing and studying in Chennai and, therefore, Court at Delhi does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try respondent’s petition. In this context, he referred to the following judgments:-

A. Sanjay Agarwal v. Smt. Krishna Agarwal reported in wherein it has been held as under: “12. The learned District Judge, Merta while stating the conclusions as reproduced above, has not referred to the relevant of the provisions dealing with the question of jurisdiction but it is apparent that it is the declaration in Clause (a) of Section 6 of the Act of 1956 about the ordinary d