Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

CM No. 1107/2013 in FAO No.29/2013

1. Since learned counsel for the parties had argued on the merits of their respective stands, we dispose of CM No.1107/2013 condoning the delay in filing FAO No.29/2013.

FAO No.29/2013 and WP(Crl.) No.1562/2012

1. Dr.Neeta Misra, the appellant in FAO No.29/2012, challenges the order dated April 03, 2012 passed by Shri K.S.Mohi, Family Court Judge. Her petition filed under Sections 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 registered as G.P.No.49/2011, for being appointed as a guardian of the minor girl child born on June 19, 2006 to her during the subsistence of her marriage with the respondent, Philip David Dexter, and for custody of the said minor girl child has been dismissed. The view taken by the learned Judge, Family Court is that the Family Court at Delhi lacks territorial jurisdiction, inasmuch as Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 confers territorial jurisdiction on such District Court within jurisdiction whereof the minor ordinarily resides. The respondent in the Appeal, Philip David Dexter is the writ petitioner in WP(Crl.) No.1562/2012. He prays therein that the minor daughter be directed to be produced in Court by Dr.Neeta Misra and her custody be given to him.

2. In the appeal and the writ petition, we are therefore concerned with a little girl child born on June 19, 2006, who would be aged 6 years and 9 months as of date; far away from the age of adolescence. To respect the anonymity of the child and at the same time not to undermine her persona by labeling her with a letter, we shall give her a name for the purpose of our decision. We shall call her: ‘Hope’.

3. We must confess at the outset that we had heard arguments at length spread over the afternoon session on three days i.e. March 01, 2013, March 05, 2013 and lastly on March 19, 2013, on which date the appeal and the writ petition were reserved for judgment as also pending applications therein; notwithstanding that for the purposes of the appeal we were required to adjudicate the limited point pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Family Courts at Delhi. Thus, we were not to hear any argument on the sustainability of the claim of Dr.Neeta Misra in Guardianship Petition No.49/2011. But, while deciding the writ petition filed by Philip David Dexter, and for considering the prima-facie claim of Philip David Dexter for a direction that Dr.Neeta Misra should produce Hope in Court and her custody be entrusted to him, it became necessary to consider the factual aspect of the matter and thus we were compelled to hear learned counsel for the parties at considerable length with respect to not only the legal position, but also the factual backdrop of the litigation; and we unhesitatingly record that learned counsel for Dr.Neeta Misra, Ms.Malvika Rajkotia and learned counsel for Philip David Dexter, Mr.Anil Malhotra, presented the rival viewpoints with the forensic expertise which one would expect from lawyers appearing before Courts of Record. We go back, therefore, to the year 2004 when Dr.Neeta Misra married Philip David Dexter in December 2004. It was the first marriage of Dr.Neeta Misra and the second for Philip David Dexter, who was married for the first time in the year 1991 and was blessed with a son aged 13 years or so as of December 2004, who was living with Philip David Dexter after his parents obtained a divorce. From a live-in relationship, a son was blessed who was aged around 6 years as of December 2004 and was living with Philip David Dexter after his parents separated. Hope came into the world of the living when Dr.Neeta Misra and Philip David Dexter were blessed on June 19, 2006.

4. Relationship soured between Dr.Neeta Misra and Philip David Dexter. They took recourse to legal help. The Solicitors engaged by the two had a meaningful dialogue on the terms of separation. Both moved an application for divorce by mutual consent to snap the matrimonial bond; requ