IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
9 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.57 OF 2018
PRASAD GANGADHAR TURAKANE
VERSUS
MANISHA NAVNATH DAVANGE AND ANOTHER
…
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Shaikh M.S. h/f Shri Deshmukh S.S.
Advocate for Respondents 1 2 : Shri Gandhi A.S.
…
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: April 15, 2019
…
PER COURT :-
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 10.4.2017, by
which, Civil Misc. Application No.63 of 2013, filed by the appellant /
father under Section 8 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 has been
returned to the appellant to be presented before the learned District
Judge, Nasik.
2. I have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned
Advocates for the parties.
3. The marriage between the appellant and respondent No.1 was
dissolved in 2009. Their biological daughter Dhanashri @ Saburi is
about 11 years of age today and is taking education in a Zilla Parishad
School at village Bangaon, Tq. Nandgaon, District Nasik. She resides
with her maternal uncle, who is nurturing her. The appellant / father as
akl/d
::: Uploaded on – 16/04/2019 17/04/2019 03:17:28 :::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
2- APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.57 OF 2018
well as respondent No.1 / mother have got remarried and are busy with
their marital duties.
4. Section 9 of the said Act prescribes the jurisdiction to entertain
an application under the said Act. It clearly and unambiguously lays
down a precondition that the District Court, within whose jurisdiction
the minor ordinarily resides, would entertain such an application. The
appellant is residing at Ahmednagar and respondent No.1/mother, who
has also remarried, is residing at Kopargaon. The child is residing with
respondent No.2, who is her maternal uncle.
5. Considering the above, I do not find that the impugned order
could be branded as being perverse or erroneous. This appeal, being
devoid of merits is, therefore, dismissed.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
…
akl/d
::: Uploaded on – 16/04/2019 17/04/2019 03:17:28 :::
