ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 29.01.2020 dismissing I.A.No.42 of 2019 in G.O.P. No.48 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Family Court-cum-IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram filed under Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 r/w Section 9 and Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 CPC to reject the petition in GOP No.48 of 2018.

2. The revision petitioner is referred as the husband and the respondent is referred as the wife for the purpose of convenience.

3. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition alone are as follows:

The wife filed a petition under Sections 7 to 11 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890, vide GOP No.48 of 2018 against the husband for declaration and continuation of the wife as guardian of their minor son by name Kushal by appointing her who is the natural mother of the child, as guardian. It is the contention of the wife that her marriage with the husband was performed on 08.12.2012 in Rajamahendravaram. Immediately the marriage is consummated. She joined her husband at her in-laws’ house at Hanuman Junction. Out of the wedlock, a minor boy named Kushal was born. He was aged about four years by the date of filing of the petition. Since the husband and his parents and family members harassed her, the matter was placed before the elders. On 13.11.2006, she with the minor son and her parents, went to Hyderabad to attend a marriage of her relative, but on their return to her husband’s house, she and the son were not allowed and therefore she along with the son were brought to the house of her parents. On 06.01.2017, she got issued a legal notice to her husband to take her and the son to the matrimonial home. Having received the same, a reply with false contentions was issued. When she informed the harassment to her parents and placed the issue before the elders, the husband was admonished, however he refused to take her and the son to matrimonial home. While so, in the month of September, 2017, when she, with the minor son, went to Visakhapatnam to her relatives house, the husband along with his henchmen came there and shouted against the wife and the relatives and forcibly took away the minor son from her custody threatening with dire consequences. Immediately, when she approached the elders, they admonished the husband and demanded him to return the son, but in vain. Since then, the minor lost all the love and affection of his mother and his education also. The husband is addicted to vices. She alone is proper guardian for the minor.

4. The husband filed I.A.No.42 of 2019 to reject the main petition stating that the minor is presently in his parents’ custody at his residence in Hanuman Junction, Krishna District and is going to School regularly. Ever since the birth of the son, his wife neglected to take care of the son. The wife voluntarily gave the custody of the son to him at a family function held in Visakhapatnam in September, 2017. Since then, the son has been residing with him. The ordinary residence of the minor is Hanuman Junction, Krishna District since September, 2017. As such, the District Court, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the main petition as the minor is ordinarily resident of Hanuman Junction, Krishna District. The residence of the wife/petitioner does not determine the territorial jurisdiction for filing the application under the Guardian and Wards Act. The wife filed the petition to appoint her as guardian without having custody of the minor, consequently she is not entitled to be appointed as a guardian. Therefore, the petitioner prayed to reject the main petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. The wife filed counter opposing the petition stating that all these allegations are created for the purpose of filing the petition to harass the wife and to procrastinate the proceedings. It is incorrect to state that the Court