Hon'ble KOTHARI, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dtd. 30.11.2010 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application of the defendant-petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. and Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 in which the present petitioner defendant-inaternal grandfather claimed that since the minor Prateek was ordinarily residing with him at Gurgaon (Haryana), the application filed by father Sunil under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1989 for claiming the custody of the said minor could not lie at Nohar within the State of Rajasthan.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant Mr. Pankaj Sharma, relying upon the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Shah Harichand Ratanchand vs. Virbhal reported in AIR 1975 Gujarat 150 and Smt. Laxmi Devi vs. Kunwar Pal reported in AIR 2006 Allahabad 281 submitted that in view of language of Section 9(1) of the said Act, the application would lie to the Dist. Judge in whose jurisdiction the minor ordinarily resides. He submitted that marriage between the applicant Sunil and his wife Tamanna, daughter of the present petitioner Hariom took place on 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document