IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4768 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 7.9.2009 Dhan Raj … Petitioner Versus Man Singh Yadav …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr.Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.M.Anand, Advocate for the respondent. Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) This revision is directed against the order dated 29.7.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon vide which application moved by the petitioner for interim custody of the minor children during the pendency of the main application filed under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 has been ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner has been non-suited by holding that as the children at present are residing at Vishakhapatnam, the Court at Gurgaon does not have the jurisdiction, as the jurisdiction lies with the court where minor children are residing. It is surprising that while the application for interim custody has been dismissed on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition, it is not understood as to how main petition for custody under Act could be proceeded, after holding that the Court at Gurgaon has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner has impugned this order primarily on the ground that on the date of filing of the main petition, the CR No.4768 of 2009 minor children were residing within the jurisdiction of the Court at Gurgaon and they were taken away to Vishakhapatnam by the respondent after filing of the petition and the custody of the minor children handed over to the sister of the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that impugned order cannot be sustained as the jurisdiction of the court cannot be taken away merely by an act of the respondent, by taking the minor children outside the jurisdiction of the Gurgaon Court, after filing of the petition. He further contends that the petitioner being natural guardian and a person of sufficient means, can look after them in a better way, therefore is entitled to the custody of the minor children. Mr.P.M.Anand, Advocate for the respondent, however supports the impugned order on the plea that the minor children were shifted to Vishakhapatnam under an arrangement between the parties, therefore, it cannot be said that children were malafidely taken away out of the jurisdiction of the court as alleged. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that in view of the past conduct of the petitioner, welfare of the minor children lies in the hands of the respondent. This Court at this stage is not to go into the merits of the controversy. It is for the Gurgaon court to decide about the custody and welfare of the minor children. The impugned order cannot be sustained, as on the date of the filing of the petition, the minor children were admittedly residing within the jurisdiction of the Court at Gurgaon. It is also not in dispute that even the immovable property transferred in the names of the minor children is situated at Gurgaon. The jurisdiction of the Court cannot be taken away even with the consent of the parties. 2 CR No.4768 of 2009 The revision petition is accordingly, allowed and the impugned order is set aside, and the case is remitted back to the learned Court at Gurgaon to decide the application moved for interim custody in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. [ Vinod K. Sharma ] Judge 07.09.2009 sd 3