The court reaffirmed that issues of jurisdiction must be settled by competent courts, and compliance with child custody orders is essential.

Headnote:(A) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Section 12 - Application for custody - A challenge to summoning orders in custody proceedings based on alleged lack of territorial jurisdiction and prior arrangements for child's visitation rights. The court emphasized the need for compliance with directives to produce the child and deemed the petition frivolous. (Paras 1, 2, 4)

(B) Jurisdiction - The court highlighted that territorial jurisdiction remains a matter for competent authority, and the petitioner's hesitance in complying with court orders raised concerns about the sincerity of the appeal. (Paras 2, 4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested summoning orders from family court, claiming improper jurisdiction and non-compliance with visitation orders. Respondent argued jurisdiction was valid based on previous court proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petition and discussed the necessity of producing the child as per court orders, asserting jurisdiction and compliance.

Issues: Whether the family court had proper jurisdiction and the implications of non-compliance with visitation agreements.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that jurisdictional matters should be resolved in lower courts and underscored the importance of adhering to court orders regarding child custody.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to summoning orders under guardians and wards act (Para 1)
2. dispute over jurisdiction and custody handling (Para 2 , 3)
3. court's discretion on jurisdiction issues (Para 4)
4. petition dismissed due to lack of merit (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)

CM APPL.26280/2022 (exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CM(M) 515/2022 & CM APPL.26279/2022 (stay)

1. Present petition has been filed challenging the summoning orders dated 27.04.2022 and 05.05.2022. The summoning orders dated 27.04.2022 and 05.05.2022 were passed in an application filed by the respondent under Section 12 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Along with the application under Section 12 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, another application under Section 151 CPC for issuance of necessary orders or directions to produce the child in the Court and hand over the custody of the child was also filed. The matter was listed on 27.04.2022 and on that date an application under Section 12 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 was listed before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, South Saket, New Delhi. Notice was issued to the respondent for 04.05.2022. On 04.05.2022, the respondent mother, i.e., the petitioner herein appeared and the matter was adjourned to 13.05.2022 for filing of reply in the application under Section 12 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The respondent mother (petitioner herein) was also directed to produce the child on 13.05.2022. On 13.05.2022, the respondent mother (petitioner herein) stated that the child could not be produced as the child got late from school and the matter was adjourned to 28.05.2022.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Trial Court on two grounds. Firstly, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, South Saket, New Delhi has no territorial jurisdiction as the child ordinarily resides in Dwarka. Secondly, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court should have restrained from passing the order for the physical production of the child in view of the earlier conduct of the father wherein in contravention of the settlement arrived at between the parties, father took the child out of NCR in Chandigarh for two days.

3. Plea of the respondent is that the issue as to the territorial jurisdiction being raised by the petitioner is actually false as the divorce between the parties was by mutual consent granted by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, South Saket, New Delhi vide order dated 13.05.2022 and even thereafter the proceedings as to the custody of the child was also conducted by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, South Saket, New Delhi and vide order dated 31.03.2022 though the custody was handed over to the mother but the learned Principal Judge, Family Court passed the order dated 31.03.2022, which reads as under:

"PRINCIPAL JUDGE

SOUTH DISTRICT

FAMILY COURT

SAKET, DELHI

HMA/16/360

Varun Kakka vs. Bithi Rastogi

31.03.2022

Present: Ms. Bithi Rastogi, the applicant with Sh. Turan Garg and Sh. Dharmender Singh, Advocates. Respondent Sh. Varun Kakkar with Sh. Dinesh Arora, Advocate.

The child Manan Kakkar, aged about 11 years, has appeared with his father.

The respondent has brought his son and has submitted that this court may pass any order regarding the custody of the child.

I have talked to the child in my chamber. Child does not want to go with his mother. After persuasion, the child has agreed to go with his mother for five days. Custody of child has been taken by his mother. Hence, nothing survives in the contempt petition. Petition is hereby dismissed.

File be consigned to record room.

(Vinod Kumar)

Principal Judge, Family Courts,

South, Saket, New Delhi 31.03.2022".

4. This Court considers that the present petition is totally frivolous. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 is though wide but has to be exercised with circumspect. The petitioner has raised an issue of territorial jurisdiction, which is yet t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document