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

2006 Supreme(All) 1759

[2006(6) ADJ 33]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : V.K. SHUKLA, J.
Dr. VINAY SAMUEL ......Petitioner
Versus
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, KANPUR NAGAR AND ANOTHER .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 74733 of 2005, decided on 7th July, 2006)

Advocates:
Counsel :
S.A. Gilani and Iqbal Ahmad for the Petitioner; Anoop Trivedi for the Respondents.

Headnote:Guardians and Wards Act, 1890—Sections 9 and 25—Custody of child—Application for—Jurisdiction—Daughter born at Kanpur in November, 2001—Just after a month, wife went to Miraj with daughter and joined husband who was a doctor—They were living there till August 2003—Thereafter, it is alleged that wife came to Kanpur with daughter and started living there—When in September 2005, application for her custody was filed by wife (mother of daughter), in Family Court, Kanpur, daughter was at Miraj—Thus, on own showing of wife (mother of daughter) daughter was residing with her father at Miraj—She was not residing at Kanpur—Application for her custody, filed in Family Court, Kanpur—Therefore, beyond jurisdiction—Law on jurisdiction contained in Section 9 for application under Section 25, seeking custody of child—Elaborated—Word ‘ordinarily resides’, used in Section 9—Interpreted and clarified. [Paras 8, 9, 11, 13 to 15 and 20]

       

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitioner Dr. Vinay Samuel Arawattigi has approached this Court questioning the validity of the order passed by the Judge Family Court, Kanpur Nagar holding that Court at Kanpur Nagar has authority and jurisdiction to deal with the application moved on behalf of the Respondent Smt. Rashmi Harry under Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant writ petition in brief is that petitioner and respondent No. 2 were married as per Christian Rites and Rituals on 2.8.1999 at Miraj (District Sangli Maharashtra). After the said marriage had been solemnized, couple in question started living together at Vail Memorial Hospital Campus Miraj District Sangli. Out of said wedlock baby “Simran” was born on 23.11.2001 at Kanpur Nagar. It has been asserted by the petitioner that after some post maternity treatment the petitioner alongwith respondent No. 2 and minor child Simran flew back to Miraj from Lucknow via Delhi on 26.12.2001 where they lived together. Petitioner has contended that in December, 2002 he joined Christian Medical College Hospital (C.M.C.H.) Vellore and there he resided with respondent No. 2 and baby Simran. Petitioner has contended that in October, 2003 he decided to start his career as a Doctor near his native town in Miraj. Petitioner has contended that settling at Miraj was not solicited by the respondent No. 2 therefore, petitioner alongwith respondent No. 2 came to Pune in search of a job as doctor but unfortunately failed to get the same. However, at latter point of time he got a job as a Doctor at Mission Hospital Miraj, but respondent No. 2 was not ready to settle at Miraj and she has been insisting and asking the petitioner to settle at Kanpur. Petitioner has contended that he did not succumb to said request of respondent No. 2, however, in order to resolve this crises and to save the family, they came at Pune. It has also been contended that 2nd birth day anniversary of baby Simran was approaching and to celebrate the same both went to Miraj where birthday was celebrated on 23.11.2003 at the friends house at Miraj. It has been contended that after aforesaid celebration of birth day of baby Simran, again same issue was raised by respondent No. 2 to settle at Kanpur which was politely declined by the petitioner and it has been asserted that respondent No. 2 asked the petitioner to leave her at her cousin brother’s house at Pune and respondent No. 2 was dropped on 26.11.2003 and from there the parents of respondent No. 2 was called upon to persuade her to behave sensibly, but nothing fruitful happened and from Pune respondent No. 2 came to Kanpur Nagar leaving baby Simran with the petitioner. It has been contended that petitioner and respondent No. 2 are living separately since 26.11.2003 and minor baby Simran has been residing with the petitioner at Miraj District Sangli. In order to harass the petitioner, respondent No. 2 filed Criminal Complaint Case No. 7849 of 2004 under Section 498-A, 323, 506, 420, I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner and his mother. Details have also been furnished of another Criminal Complaint Case No. 24733 of 2004, under Sections 406,120-B I.P.C. against the petitioner and his mother. Proceeding in both criminal cases have been stayed by this Court. Respondent No. 2 again filed Misc. Case No. 103/70 of 2004 (Smt. Rashmi Harry v. Dr. Vinay S. Arawattigi), under Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for the custody of baby Simran at Kanpur Nagar. At the point of time of filing case Munsarim of the Kanpur Nagar Court made a report that present proceeding is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court therefore, case cannot be registered. On 17.5.2004 arguments were asked to be advanced on the report of Munsarim. On 24.5.2004 order was passed by the respondent No. 1 mentioning that there is no evidence qua period of stay of child with his mother since 23.11.2005, in order to ascertai



























































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 Back to top