SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Prasad Gangadhar Turakane vs Manisha Navnath Davange And … on 15 April, 2019

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 :::

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Your email address will not be published.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

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

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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