SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Ker) 137

THOMAS
CHANDY – Appellant
Versus
MARY BANEENA – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. Mridula and Mithun are two minor children for whose guardianship their father and mother are fighting now. Both the parents are employed in Dubai, though they hail from Ernakulam District. Mridula is aged seven and Mithun is aged four. For reasons better known to the spouses (those reasons are irrelevant in this revision) their relationship has been veritably broken and the spouses are active in exchanging invectives at each other. The mother (first respondent) came to Kerala with the children in February 1987 and admitted them in a school at Eloor (Ernakulam District) for their education. The father (the petitioner) filed a petition in the District Court, Ernakulam, under the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short 'the Act') to appoint him (or to declare him) as the guardian of the children. The mother who stoutly resisted the petition contended, inter alia, that the ordinary residence of the children is in Dubai and hence the District Court, Ernakulam, has no jurisdiction. She wanted the court to decide the question of jurisdiction "before any other matter is considered in the original petition". The Additional District Judge who heard arguments fou








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top