SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mrs.Swetha Sonwani vs Mr.Dugeshwar Karley on 7 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

O.P.No.130 of 2021 and
A.No.603 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.07.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

O.P.No.130 of 2021 and
A.No.603 of 2021

Mrs.Swetha Sonwani ..Petitioner

Vs.

Mr.Dugeshwar Karley ..Respondent

Prayer: Original petition filed under Sections 3,7 to 10 and 25 of
Guardians and
Wards Act r/w Order XXI Rule 2 3 of Original Side
Rules, also r/w Clause 17 of Letters Patent Act, to appoint the petitioner
herein as the guardian of the person of the minor daughter Hiral Karley
(aged about 2 years) and direct the respondent to hand over the custody of
the minor child to the petitioner and to pay the cost of this petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Nivedita
For Respondent : Mr.P.Magesh

1/9

http://www.judis.nic.in
O.P.No.130 of 2021 and
A.No.603 of 2021

ORDER

The above Original Petition has been filed under the provisions of

the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for appointing the petitioner herein as

the guardian of the person of the minor daughter Hiral Karley (aged about

2 years) and direct the respondent to hand over the custody of the minor

child to the petitioner and other consequential reliefs.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was married to the

respondent in 2015 and the marriage was solemnised in Bilaspur,

Chattisgarh. After marriage, both the petitioner and the respondent were

living together and out of the wedlock, a girl child was born on 03.10.2018

and she was named as Hiral Karley. There was a matrimonial dispute as

between the petitioner and the respondent and the respondent appears to

have deserted the petitioner and gone back to his native place along with

the child. According to the petitioner, the respondent has forcibly taken

away the minor child from the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner

feels that the minor girl child would not be safe in the hands of the

2/9

http://www.judis.nic.in
O.P.No.130 of 2021 and
A.No.603 of 2021

respondent as she is only two years old. In the circumstances, she has

come up with this original petition seeking to appoint her as a guardian of

the minor child viz., Hiral Karley and to the consequential direction to the

respondent to hand over the custody of the minor child.

3. In response to this original petition, counter affidavit has been

filed on behalf of the respondent. A preliminary objection has been raised

in the counter as to the maintainability of the original petition itself.

According to the counter affidavit that under the provisions of the

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the Court have jurisdiction to entertain

the application for appointment of guardian normally in the place in whose

jurisdiction the minor ordinarily resides. In the present case, as on date, the

minor child is residing in Raipur, Chattisgarh and therefore, the application

under the Guardians and Wards Act need to be filed in the State of

Chattisgarh before the appropriate District Court and not on the original

side of this Court.

3/9

http://www.judis.nic.in
O.P.No.130 of 2021 and
A.No.603 of 2021

4. The counter affidavit further stated that even when the child was

living within the jurisdiction in Tamil Nadu, the family was living within

the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court, Chengalpet and the place of

residence of the petitioner is not within the original jurisdiction of this

Court. The petitioner is living in Kalpakkam township which comes under

the district administration of Chengalpet.

5. In the counter, it is also stated that the petitioner filed

H.C.P.No.2025 of 2020 before this Court and the respondent with the

minor daughter appeared before this Court on 22.12.2020 and

subsequently on 22.01.2021 and permitted the respondent to retain the

custody of his daughter and directed the petitioner to move separate

application for custody. This fact has not been stated by the petitioner in

the original petition.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent raised objection as to the

maintainability of the original petition with reference to Sections 3 and 9 of

4/9

http://www.judis.nic.in
O.P.No.130 of 2021 and
A.No.603 of 2021

the Guardians and Wards Act which reads as under:

3. Saving of jurisdiction of Courts of Wards and
Chartered High Courts :-

This Act shall be read subject to every enactment
heretofore or hereafter passed relating to any Court of
Wards by any competent Legislature, authority or
person in any state to which this Act extends and
nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect or in any
way derogate from the jurisdiction or authority of any
Court of Wards, or to take away any power possessed by
any High Court.

9. Court having jurisdiction to entertain
application:-

(1) If the application is with respect to the
guardianship of the person of the minor, it shall be
made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the
place where the minor ordinarily resides.

(2) If the application is with respect to the
guardianship of the property of the minor, it may be
either to the District Court having jurisdiction in the
place where the minor ordinarily resides or to District
Court having jurisdiction in a place where he has

5/9

http://www.judis.nic.in
O.P.No.130 of 2021 and
A.No.603 of 2021

property.

(3) If an application with respect to the
guardianship of the property of a minor is made to a
District Court other than that having jurisdiction in the
place where the minor ordinarily resides, the Court may
return the application if in its opinion the application
would be disposed of more justly or conveniently by any
other District Court having jurisdiction.

7. According to the above Sections that the present original petition

is not maintainable. The learned counsel would also refer to original side

rules in Order 21 Rule 2 which reads as follows:

XXI.GUARDIAN AND WARDS

2. Application for appointment of guardian:

An application by any person other than the Collector,
for the appointment of a guardian, or for a declaration
that a person is the guardian of a minor shall be by
original petition.”

8. The above provision has to be read along with Madras High Court

Jurisdictional Limits Act, 1927. The amended schedule appended to the

6/9

http://www.judis.nic.in
O.P.No.130 of 2021 and
A.No.603 of 2021

Act describes the jurisdiction of this Court, beyond that, this Court has no

territorial original jurisdiction. The applicant is admittedly living outside

the jurisdiction of this Court i.e., in Chengalpet District and therefore, this

petition is not maintainable at all.

9. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner simply stated that

the original petition is maintainable. when this Court repeatedly inquired

that whether she has any valid legal answer to the objections raised on

behalf of the respondent as to the maintainability of the original petition,

unfortunately, the learned counsel repeated that the original petition is

maintainable without any supportive legal submissions.

10. This Court has gone through the rule position in terms of the

Guardians and Wards Act and also the original side rules and in the

absence of any contra legal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner,

this original petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable on the

jurisdictional issue.

7/9

http://www.judis.nic.in
O.P.No.130 of 2021 and
A.No.603 of 2021

11. Accordingly, this original petition stands dismissed.

Consequently, connected application stands closed.

07.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes
gsk

8/9

http://www.judis.nic.in
O.P.No.130 of 2021 and
A.No.603 of 2021

V.PARTHIBAN,J.

gsk

O.P.No.130 of 2021 and
A.No.603 of 2021

07.07.2021

9/9

http://www.judis.nic.in

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation