115-1929

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
FAO-1929-2019 (OM)
Date of Decision:12.03.2019
*****
Nandni . . . . . Appellant
Vs.
Vicky Arora . . . . . Respondent
*****
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
*****
Present: – Mr.S.S. Gill, Advocate, for the appellant.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL)

This appeal is filed against the order dated 22.11.2018 by which the

petition filed under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 by the

appellant for seeking custody of the minor son, namely, Nitish Arora born on

25.2.2011, has been dismissed both on the grounds that she has no means to look

after the welfare of the child and also the Court does not have the jurisdiction in

terms Section 9(1) of the Act.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that if the Court had

to dismiss the petition on the ground of jurisdiction then it should have sent the

case to the Court, who had the jurisdiction to decide the same.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and after perusal of

the record, are of the considered opinion that since there is no challenge by the

appellant to the finding recorded by the trial Court on the issue of territorial

jurisdiction, therefore, she may, if so advised, de hors the decision dated

22.11.2018, prefer a petition before the Court, who has the jurisdiction to decide

the lis raised by her.

With these observations, the present appeal is hereby disposed of.

(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
JUDGE

(HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
12.03.2019 JUDGE
Vivek
Whether speaking /reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No

1 of 1
24-03-2019 17:54:26 :::