S.K. Mal Lodha, J.—This appeal under section 47 (b) of the Guardi-ans and Wards Act (No. VIII of 1890) (for short the Act hereafter) is directed against the order dated October 4, 1978 of the learned District Judge. Bhilwara, by which, he directed return of the application under section 10 and 25 of the Act to the appellant, which was filed on January 3, 1975.

2. The case of the appellant is that she moved an application under sections 10 and 25 of the Acton January 3, 1975 before the learned District Judge Bhilwara that she may be appointed guardian of the person and property of Sushree Meena, who is the minor daughter of her son late Sushil Kumar and that she may be returned to her custody from Smt Maya Devi (respondent No. 1.) It has been stated that Shri Sushil Kumar and Smt. Maya Devi were married on July 15, 1972. Out of this wedlock, Sushree Meena was born on April 20, 1973. It is said that when Sushree Meena was only one month old, Smt. Maya-devi left her matrimonial home and went to her parents house at Bandikui. The relations between Sushilkumar and Smt. Maya Devi from the very inception of the marriage were unhappy. It has further been stated that after Smt. Maya Devi had left her matrimonial home, Shri Sushil Kumar committed suicide by drowning himself into a well on June 25, 1973. Thereafter, on July 16, 1974, Smt Maya Devi contracted the second marriage with one Rajni Kant Pant at Jaipur and started living with him at Jaipur. It had also been stated that after contracting the second marriage Sushree Meena was left with Virendra Kumar (maternal uncle), Kapil Dev Vashist (maternal grant-father) and Smt. Sushila (wife of maternal uncle of Shri Virendra Kumar) (respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 respectively in this appeal). Shri Sushil Kumar was employed in the service as Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department (B&R), Government of Rajas-than and had left the Provident Fund amount, arrears of salary and gratuity, all amounting to Rs. 10,000/-, which were in deposit with the Public Works Depart-ment (B&R) at Bhilwara. The appellant, who is the grant mother of Sushree Meena, filed the application as aforesaid for the appointment of Guardian in respect of persons and property of the minor Sushree Meena and for return of her custody as aforesaid

3. In para 14 of the application, it was stated that Sushree Meena was resident of Bhilwara and the property which she is to get is also at Bhilwara and, therefore, the District Judge at Bhilwara has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application for the appointment of the guardian of person and property of Sushree Meena.

4. A reply contesting the application was filed on April 19, 1975, which is signed by respondents No. 1,3 and 4 and the learned District Judge, as is clear from para 10 of the impugned order, took this reply on behalf of respondent No. 3 only. The application was contested on several grounds, which need not be stated here. Suffice it to state that in para 14 of the reply, it was stated that the Court at Bhilwara has no jurisdiction to hear the petition. In para 4 of the additional pleas in the reply, it was also stated that all the amount of Shri Sushil Kumar is in deposit at Jaipur and that Sushree Meena lives with her mother Smt. Mayadevi at Jaipur and, therefore, the Court at Bhilwara has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, 5 issues inclusive of the relief were framed by the learned District Judge. In this appeal, I am only concerned with issue No. 2, which when translated into English reads as under:

"2. Whether the application is not triable by the Court ?"

In support of the application, the statement of Smt. Vimla Devi (appellant) as PW. 1 was recorded. In rebuttal, Virendra Kumar (NAW 1) (respondent No.2) was examined. By the impugned order dated October 4, 1978, the learned District Judge decided issue No. 2 against the appellant and in favour of the respondents holding that the District Judge at Bhilw

Click Here to Read the rest of this document