1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.04.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI C.M.A.(MD)No.451 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008 E.Umamaheswari ... Appellant/Respondent Vs. P.Selvakumar ... Respondent/Petitioner Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, against the order and decree made in G.W.O.P.No.91 of 2006, dated 21.11.2007, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai. For Petitioner : Mr.T.V.Sivakumar For Respondent : Mr.R.Siva Subramaniam J U D G M E N T The respondent herein had filed G.W.O.P.No.91 of 2006, before the learned Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai, under Sections 24 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for appointing him as guardian for the minor child, viz., Selvapriya. 2.The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondent herein is the petitioner, before the Principal District Judge, Pudukottai. 3.According to the petitioner, his marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 10.02.2000, as per the Hindu Rites and Customs and they were living together at Pudukottai. The petitioner was an Engineering student and he went to Trichy for his further studies and later he joined in a College at Pudukottai, as a Lecturer. In the meanwhile, the respondent gave birth to a child, viz., Selvapriya. The respondent left for Chennai and when the petitioner opted her to come to his place, she did not come. The minor child Selvapriya was under the care and custody of the petitioner at Pudukottai. There is a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between them and on 16.01.2006, the respondent came to Pudukottai and forcibly took the child along with her to Chennai and therefore, the petitioner had filed an application for appointing him as a guardian to the minor child. 4.The application was resisted by the respondent/wife on the ground that the child was all along with her at Chennai and the allegation of forcibly taking the child away is false. Further it was contended that the petitioner has no legal right to be appointed as a guardian of the minor child. The respondent also questioned the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain such an application at Pudukottai and alleged that the cause of action was vexatious and the minor child was all along with her at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Chennai. The jurisdiction of the Court below was also questioned on the ground that on the date of filing of the petition, the petitioner has admitted that the child was residing at Chennai. 5.However, the learned Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai, after elaborately discussing the issues, held that the Principal District Court, Pudukottai, has the territorial jurisdiction to enquire the application but has negatived the claim of the petitioner for guardianship. However, the respondent was given visitation rights on various conditions. 6.Aggrieved by the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Pudukottai, and challenging the jurisdiction of the said Court, and also challenging the various terms and conditions of the visitation rights, the respondent/wife has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 7.The learned counsel for the appellant/respondent submitted that the said Court has no jurisdiction, as the petitioner himself has admitted in his evidence that he had handed over the child to the respondent/wife at Chennai and therefore, the alleged kidnapping or forcibly taking the child, will not create a cause of action at Pudukottai. The learned counsel also pointed out that under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the jurisdiction will arise, where the child ordinarily residing, on the date of filing of the petition. The learned counsel also pointed out that the various conditions imposed by the learned Principal District Judge, Pudukottai, restricts the respondent/wife and benefits the petitioner/father. 8.While the matter was being heard in the presence of both the counsel and their parties agreed for a settlement on the modified terms of visitation rights. However, a mute question arises in this appeal as to whether the learned Principal District Judge, Pudukottai, has jurisdiction to try the Original Petition, filed under Section 25 of the said Act?. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer Section 9 of the said Act. Section 9 of the said act reads as follows:- “9.Court having jurisdiction to entertain application- (1)If the application is with respect to the guardianship of the person of the minor, it shall be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides. (2)If the application is with respect to the guardianship of the property of the minor, it may be made either to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides or to a District Court having jurisdiction in a place where he had property. (3)If an application with respect to the guardianship of the property of a minor is made to a District Court other than that having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides, the Court may return the application if in its opinion the application would be disposed of more justly or conveniently by any other District Court having jurisdiction.” 9.The learned counsel for the respondent/wife pointed out that the petitioner/father had admitted in his evidence that the child was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 voluntarily handed over to the mother and at the time of filing of the petition, she was residing at Chennai, and therefore, the jurisdiction comes within the Family court at Chennai. 10.If this Court finds that the learned Principal District Judge, Pudukottai, has no jurisdiction to try the Original Petition, then the only option is to direct the parties to go before the Court, which has jurisdiction and it will protract the proceedings and it will be a harassment to the child. 11.Now, both the parties have agreed for a terms of settlement before this Court and the term is also finalized. Under these circumstances, whether this Court is empowered to proceed further without giving a finding on the question of jurisdiction is also to be considered. In my considered view, this Court has jurisdiction to proceed further under Section 43 of the Act. Section 43 of the Act, reads as follows:- “43.Orders for regulating conduct or proceedings of guardians, and enforcement of those orders-(1)The Court may, on the application of any person interested or of its own motion, make an order regulating the conduct or proceedings of any guardian appointed or declared by the Court. (2)Where there are more guardians than one of a ward and they are unable to agree upon a question affecting his welfare, any of them may apply to the Court for its direction, and the Court may make such order respecting the matter in difference as it thinks fit. (3)Except where it appears that the object of making an order under sub Section (1) of Sub Section (2) would be defeated by the delay, the Court shall, before making the order, direct notice of the application therefor or of the intention of the Court to make it, as the case may be, to be given, in a case under Sub Section (1), to the guardian or, in a case under Sub Section (2), to the guardian who has not made the application. (4)In case of disobedience to an order made under sub Section (1) or sub Section (2), the order may be enforced in the same manner as an injunction granted under Section 492 or section 493 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882 in a case under Sub Section (1), as if the ward were the plaintiff and the guardian were the defendant, or, in a case under sub Section (2), as if the guardian who made the application were the plaintiff and the other guardian were the defendant. (5)Except in a case under Sub Section (2), nothing in this Section shall apply to a Collector who is, as such, a guardian.” 12.The appellant is declared as guardian and the father is given the visitation rights and they are before this Court and this Court is empowered to regulate the conduct of the parties in relation to the ward under Section 43(1) of the Act. In the interest of the welfare of the minor child, the jurisdiction question is decided accordingly and the orders passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Pudukottai is modified. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 13.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the conditions imposed by the Court below, is set aside and as agreed by the parties the terms are modified as under:- i)The father is entitled to visit the child Selvapriya at Chennai only during festival days and also on the Birth day of the child in a common place at Chennai after intimating to the respondent/wife, in advance. ii)The respondent/father is also entitled to present gifts and other eating items viz., biscuits and chocolates. iii) The respondent/father is entitled to take the minor child to his residence during the Christmas Holidays, i.e. on 25th December to 2nd January and hand over the child to the petitioner/wife, before one day prior to the reopening of the school. (iv)It is also observed that the respondent/father shall visit the minor child alone. Since the child is nearing the age of puberty, the father is also directed to intimate the respondent/wife or the respondent's parents, at Trichy, in case of any illness of the child. No cots. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (R) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Principal District Judge, Pudukottai. + 1 cc to Mr.R.Sivasubramanian, Advocate, SR No.9792 + 1 cc to Mr.T.V.Sivakumar, Advocate, SR No.9723 C.M.A.(MD)No.451 of 2008 30.04.2009 RJ/15.5.09 (IT) 4p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/