Paramjeet Singh, J. —CM No. .16529-CII of 2013 Civil Misc. Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Annexures P6 to P8 are taken on record. CR No.3990 of 2013 Instant revision petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 25.5.2013 (Annexure P5) passed by learned Guardian Judge, Chandigarh whereby attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.3990 of 2013 (O&M) 2 two applications filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC have been dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of the case are that the respondent, mother of two minor children, namely, Shaurya aged about 7½ years and Achint, aged about 3½ years by moving a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1850, has claimed a declaration from the Guardian Judge, Chandigarh that she is natural guardian of the minor children and has prayed for restoration of custody of both the children, who are under the control and custody of the petitioner.

3. The respondent filed a criminal complaint on 10.7.2012 before Women Cell at Chandigarh under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Another petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.is pending before the District Judge at Chandigarh. Vide order dated 26.10.2012, the learned Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs.13,500 per month as an interim maintenance to the respondent.

The revision petitioner filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which is pending in a Court at Rohini, Delhi.

Thereafter, the respondent filed a transfer petition (c) No.223 of 2013 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for transfer of divorce petition.

The respondent also lodged an FIR No.76 of 2013 under Section 498A, 406 IPC against the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner on receipt of summons to appear before the Guardian Judge, Chandigarh appeared in Court and filed written statement.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed two applications under Section 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. challenging territorial jurisdiction of the court and praying for return of the petition to the respondent on the ground of non- compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 10(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’. Vide the impugned order dated 25.5.2013, learned Guardian Judge has dismissed both the applications.

Hence, this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. In the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the petitioner challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Guardian Judge at Chandigarh to entertain and decide the petition under Section 25 as the same was hit by Section 9 of the Act.

It was claimed that both the minor children are ordinarily residing and Studying in Delhi as the minor children have been left by the respondent/mother, in a very callous and indifferent manner.

The second application was moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for return of the plaint to the respondent on the ground of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act.

Thus, the question of jurisdiction and non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act have been raised by the petitioner before the Guardian Judge.

With regard to the point of jurisdiction in the impugned order, it has been observed that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court, the Guardian Court has territorial jurisdiction to decide the petition.

6. On the second application relating to non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the Act, the trial court has observed that if some procedural defect is there in the petition filed by the applicant, the same can be allowed to be corrected by the applicant but on this technical ground, applicant cannot be non-suited.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the trial Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the original petiti