Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3473
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
N.Seshasayee, J
Sabarivasan – Appellant
Versus
Chandra Lekha – Respondent
C.R.P(NPD).No.607 of 2022|C.M.P.No.3159 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.Murali Krishnan
A court cannot return a petition or dictate specific pleadings to a party; the parties must be allowed to stand by their pleadings. Legal consequences, such as natural guardianship, flow from the facts pleaded rather than requiring specific statutory citations in the petition.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a Guardian and Ward petition seeking to be declared the permanent guardian of two minor children. The Family Court returned the petition on the grounds that the petitioner failed to explicitly plead his status as a natural guardian under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and questioned territorial jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. The High Court found that being a natural guardian is a legal consequence of a valid marriage already stated in the pleadings and that the Family Court lacks the authority to dictate specific pleadings to parties. The central issue was whether the trial court can return a petition for failing to use specific legal phrasing regarding natural guardianship and jurisdiction. The Court held that it is not for the Court to dictate what should be pleaded, as parties must be allowed to stand by their own pleadings and sustain them. Furthermore, Section 7(1)(g) of the Family Courts Act empowers the Family Court to deal with custody issues, rendering the registry's objections groundless. With the above observations, this Civil Revision petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the challenge against the return of a guardianship petition by the family court. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. the court cannot dictate the specific forms of pleadings to parties. (Para 5) |
| 3. family court's statutory power over custody issues and registry accountability. (Para 6) |
| 4. setting aside the docket order and ordering a review of registry training. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to allow this Civil Revision Petition and set aside the docket order dated 26.11.2021 passed in G.W.O.P.Sr.No.OP/424/2021 on the file of Hon'ble Family Court, Vellore.
O R D E R
1. The revision is filed challenging certain docket order passed in unnumbered G.W.O.P.Sr.No.OP/424/2021.
2. The revision petitioner is the father of the Children and respondent is the mother. He had filed guardian ward petition to declare that the petitioner/father of the Children as the permanent guardian of the two minor children.
3. This was returned on filing on the following grounds:
(a) How is prayer (a) maintainable. Petitioner is a natural guardian of the minor to be stated as per u/s 6 of the HMG Act 1956.
(b) How this petition is maintainable on the point of territorial jurisdiction {u/s 9 of the GW Act 1890}
4. This is challenged in this revision on the ground of return.
5. This Court is literally shocked to read ground Nos.1 and 3 for the grounds of return. Ground No.1 extracted above indicates that the Court insists on a statement in the pleadings of the Revision petitioner that he is the natural guardian of the minor children under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and ground No.3 relates to territorial jurisdiction of the minors in maintaining the Guardian and Wards original petition before the Court in Vellore in terms of Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890.
5.1. So far as first ground goes, a perusal of the petition shows that even in paragraph No.1, the revision petitioner has made a statement that he has married the respondent and the minors were born to him. Whether some body is a natural guardian or not, is a legal consequence of the children born out of a valid marriage.
5.2. This Court is aghast as to why a specific pleading must be required on that aspect. In this regard, the Family Court, Vellore has totally ignored the order of this Court in the case of Selvaraj Vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant. It is not for the Court to dictate as to what should be pleaded, and it must be left to the choice of the parties. Let the party be allowed to stand by the pleadings, and it is their obligations to sustain their pledings.
6. Turning to Paragraph 9 is concerned, Application is filed before the Family Court and Section 7 (1)(g) of the Family Act empowers a Family Court to deal with the issue relating to custody of the children born out of marriage. This Court considers that there is lack of application of mind by the learned Family Judge on this issue. It is also now evident that the learned Family Judge has not trained his passing officer/Sherishtadar on the parameters that he has to take into account while scrutunising any petition/application filed by the parties and that he is not entitled to. It is apparent that whoever is Passing Officer/Registry of the Family Court, he is absolutely ignorant about the ratio laid in Selvaraj Vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited and Others reported in 2021 (4) CTC 539 : 2021-3-LW 677 : 2021 (3) MWN 73]
7. The Revision petitioner is now required to represent the petition again before the Family Court, which has to now apply the mind to the facts stated as in terms of what is stated above.
8. With the above observations, this Civil Revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
9. Registry is required to return the original copy of the G.W.O.P. to the petitioner. The Registry is also required to obtain records of l
