Sunita v. Manoj Kumar
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court set aside an order rejecting a petition on territorial jurisdiction grounds. It remanded the case to the Family Court on merits and granted the petitioner visitation rights, including fortnightly and Sunday access, while denying overnight stay for now.
What did the court decide?
Impugned order set aside; dispute remanded to Family Court; visitation rights granted; overnight stay denied.
What the court decided
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- CM(M) 483/2017, CM APPL. 16526/2017
S ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Karan S Thukral with Mr.Rohit Yadav, Advs with Petitioner. versus M ..... Respondent Through: Mr. R. K Tewari , Mr. O. P. Sharma and Mr. Y. R. Sharma, Advs.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
%
O R D E R 09.02.2018
- The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28th March, 2017 whereby the learned Family Court rejected her petition under Section 25 of the Guardian & Wards Act, 1890 on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
- After some hearing, learned counsels for both the parties agree that the impugned order dated 28th March, 2017 be set aside and the case be remanded back to the learned Family Court to adjudicate the case on merits. 3. The impugned order dated 28th March, 2017 is set aside and it is held that the learned Family Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition. The parties shall appear before the learned Family Court on 20th March, 2018 at 03:00 PM along with the minor child. The respondent shall file written statement within 30 days from today with advance copy of learned counsel for the petitioner, who shall file the replication before the learned Family Court on 20th March, 2018. On 20th March, 2018, the learned
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to visitation rights and overnight stay with the minor child.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
S
- respondent
M
Coram
J.R. Midha
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court