IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 2676 OF 2018 (GW)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI CHIKKANAGAIAH, S/O. ERANNA, AGED ABOUT: 61 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, 2. SMT. ERAMMA, W/O CHIKKA NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING OF BHARMASANDRA-572139, Digitally signed SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

by VALLI …APPELLANTS MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH (BY SRI T. GOVINDA RAJA, ADVOCATE)

COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

1. SMT. LAXMIDEVI, W/O LATE H. SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, 2. SRI. K.S. RAJANNA, S/O. LATE H. SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS, AUTO DRIVER BOTH ARE R/O I.U.D.P LAYOUT, 7^TH CROSS, CHITRADURGA-577501.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 (ABSENT))

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 47(a) OF THE GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED12.02.2018 PASSED ON G&WC No.4/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, CHITRADURGA, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 7 & 10 OF GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

2. The aforesaid appeal has been filed seeking to challenge the judgment and order dated 12.02.2018 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chitradurga in G & WC No.4/2017 whereby the application filed by the respondents under Sections 7 and 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 was allowed and the appellants herein who were respondents in the proceedings before the trial Court were directed to hand over the ward, K.R. Kavya, to the petitioner No.2, who is the natural father of the ward. Visitation and custodial rights were also granted to the appellants.

3. It appears from the record that though the appellants-respondents appeared through their counsel but they did not resist the claim of the petitioners. Further, despite publication in the newspapers, nobody appeared and resisted the claim of the petitioners. Accordingly, the order impugned was passed.

4. However, learned counsel for the appellants has raised a question of jurisdiction as to the maintainability of the application under Sections 7 and 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 before the District Court of Chitradurga district. The contention is that the ordinary place of residence of the ward has not been adjudicated by the Court at Chitradurga before adjudicating the case on merit. It is contended that the issue being raised by him being one of jurisdiction can be raised at this stage.

5. The appellants have filed an I.A. No.1/2018 for producing additional documents under Order 41 Rule 27. No one appears for the respondents despite name of the counsel appearing in the cause-list. There does not appear to be any objection to the aforesaid I.A. No.1/2018.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and since the issue being raised is one of jurisdiction and the additional documents sought to be produced include proof of details of payments of the education fee and other educational records of the ward, we deem it fit to allow the aforesaid application. I.A. No.1/2018 is accordingly allowed.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and having perused the record, it appears that the issue of jurisdiction has to be decided by the appropriate Court after considering the evidence on record, in as much as the learned counsel for the appellants has stated it is the District Court of Tumakuru, which would have jurisdiction in the matter given the provisions of Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and not the District Court at Chitradurga.

8. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the order impugned dated 12.02.2018 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chitradurga in G & WC