Allowed

Anita v. Ram Pyari

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Dec 2013TA/419/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Under Section 24 CPC, the High Court transferred a guardianship petition from Jhajjar to Bhiwani. The court held that since minor children resided in Bhiwani, jurisdiction lay there under Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 transferred from Civil Judge, Jhajjar to District Court, Bhiwani.

Anita Vs Ram Pyari — Child Custody and Guardianship | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Manoj Kumar #1# 2013.12.19 10:55I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶2

TA 419/2013 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

TA 419/2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.12.2013

¶5

Anita

¶6

.............Petitioner

¶7

¶8

Smt. Ram Pyari and Anr.

¶9

.............Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶11

Present:Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pardeep Chahar, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶12

Jaswant Singh,J(Oral).

¶13

Petitioner-widow has filed the present transfer application under Section 24 CPC for the transfer of petition filed by respondent/mother-in-law under Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 read with Section 7 of the Guardians and Ward Act, 1890 ( for short “the Act”) titled Smt. Ram Pyari Vs. Anita and Anr. from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jhajjar to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Bhiwani.

¶14

It is stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the son-Sushil Kumar Kaushik of respondent No.1 on 20.11.1999 at Village Ranila, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. Said Sushil Kumar died on 6.3.2009 leaving behind his two minor sons namely Chirag (aged 11 years) and Yatin (aged 07 years) and one minor daughter named Lisa (aged 10 years). It is further averred that the petitioner with the consent of respondent No.1, had taken all minor

¶15

#2#

¶16

TA 419/2013 (O&M)

¶17

children to her parental home at Ranila where they are stated to be residing right now.

¶18

Thereafter, respondent No.1-Ram Pyari filed a petition under 13 of the Act, which is now pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jhajjar.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is extremely inconvenient for the petitioner to pursue the litigation at Jhajjar, which is which is about 40 kms away from Bhiwani. He further relies on the provisions of Sub Section (1) of Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (for short “the Act”), which provide that the application in respect of the guardianship of the person of the minor has to be made before a court having jurisdiction, where the minor ordinarily resides.

¶20

At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent only prays for referring the parties to mediation for grant of visitation rights.

¶21

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and in the context of provisions of aforesaid Section 9(1) of the Act and that minor children are concededly residing at Bhiwani, the present petition is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled Smt. Ram Pyari Vs. Anita and Anr. from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jhajjar is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the District Courts, Bhiwani for disposal in accordance with law from the stage of withdrawal.

¶22

( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE

¶23

December 13, 2013 manoj

Anita v. Ram Pyari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita v. Ram Pyari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailza Vs Sunny Malhotra

Priyanka Arora Vs Vikram Arora

Priyanka Arora & Ors. Vs Vikram Arora

Seema Garg Vs Rajiv Garg

Shameena Vs Hasandin

Pamita Devi Vs Gulshan Kumar