IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRP No.11 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure)

Rankanath Khandei …. Petitioner -versus-

Santosini Khandei …. Opposite Party Appeared in this case:-

For Petitioner : Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate For Opposite Party : Ms. S. Sahoo, Advocate CORAM:

JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing : 07.04.2025 / date of judgment : 17.04.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 has been filed by the petitioner(who was the Opposite Party in GUAP No.07 of 2023 in the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Boudh) challenging an order of rejection to his petition under Order-7, Rule- 11(d) read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 passed on dated 24.01.2024 in GUAP No.07 of 2023. 2. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted the petitioner (husband) for filing of the same against his wife(Opposite Party) is that, the Opposite Party of this revision being the wife of the petitioner filed a case vide GUAP No.07 of 2023 in the court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Boudh against the Opposite Party (who is the petitioner in this revision) as per the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 praying for appointing her as a guardian of her minor son Rudranarayan Khandei aged about five years under Section 7 of The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 stating that, her matrimonial house, i.e., the house of her husband is at village Odasara, Dam Chack under the jurisdiction of Daspalla Police Station in the district of Nayagarh and by giving severe physical and mental torture, to her, her husband and his family members deserted her, for which, she(wife) is residing in her parents‟ house at Dalua Sahi under Harabhanga Police Station in the district of Boudh and her husband along with his family members kept her minor son, i.e., Rudranarayan Khandei aged about five years with them in their house debarring her(wife) from the guardianship of her minor son as well as abstaining her from taking the proper care of her minor son for his well- being, though she is a fit person to be the guardian of her minor son and to look-after him properly for his welfare and benefit. Her husband and his family members are not taking proper care of her minor son in their house. For which, without getting any way, she approached the learned Judge, Family Court, Boudh by filing GUAP No.07 of 2023 being the petitioner against her husband arraying him as Opposite Party praying for appointing her(Santoshini Khandei) under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 as guardian of her minor son, Rudranarayan Khandei.

The husband of the petitioner, i.e., Opposite Party filed a petition in that GUAP No.07 of 2023 under Order-7, Rule-11(d) read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. praying for rejection of the petition of that GUAP No.07 of 2023 filed by his wife on the ground that, the petition of his wife is not maintainable under law due to lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Judge, Family Court, Boudh to entertain the same. Because, his minor son, i.e., Rudranarayan Khandei is staying in his house at village Odasara, Dam Chack under Daspalla Police Station in the District of Nayagarh, for which, the learned Judge, Family Court in the District of Boudh has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition vide GUAP No.07 of 2023 filed by his wife. So, the petition vide GUAP No.07 of 2023 filed by his wife is liable to be rejected as per Order-7, Rule-11(d) read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908.

To which, the petitioner of GUAP No.07 of 2023 objected stating in her objection that, her minor son is not staying voluntarily in the house of the Opposite Party, but, the Opposite Party along with his family members have kept him forcibly there after driving her out from their house. For which, according to her, the petition under Order-7 Rule-11(d)

read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., filed by her husband is liable to be rejected.

3. After hearing from both the side