C.R.No.4541 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4541 of 2011 Date of decision: 29.11.2011 Narendra Jagga . ..Petitioner Versus Paramjit Kaur ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Karamjit Kaur, Advocate for the respondent. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 3.5.2011, Annexure P.7 passed by the trial court whereby an application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, “the Code”) for return of the plaint on the ground that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit, had been declined. 2. Brief facts may be noticed. The respondent-wife was married to one Manohar Singh of Delhi from whom she sought panchayati divorce on 15.2.1996. Out of the said wedlock, a son namely Rupinder Singh alias Mani was born who is now residing with the respondent-wife. By misrepresenting the fact that the divorce had been obtained from the earlier husband, the respondent-wife was married to the petitioner on 6.6.2001 as 1 C.R.No.4541 of 2011 per Sikh rites and rituals. One girl child namely Akriti was born out of this wedlock who is now residing with the petitioner-husband at Agra. After the birth of the child, the behaviour of respondent-wife changed and she started going to Patiala without any intimation. The petitioner tried to settle the matter and to bring the respondent at Agra but in vain. Thereafter the respondent left the matrimonial home on 2.2.2006 without the consent of the petitioner after leaving the girl Akriti at Agra as her son Mani was studying at Patiala. Since attempt to settle the matter failed, the petitioner- husband filed a petition for annulment of marriage on 9.5.2006 at Agra. The respondent filed a petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal procedure on 14.6.2006 at Patiala for maintenance. During the pendency of the above said petitions, a compromise was arrived at between the parties on 25.5.2007. Both the above petitions were dismissed in default. After the compromise, the parties started living together at Agra and then on 4.11.2009, the respondent-wife came back to Patiala on her own and severed all her relations with her husband and her daughter Akriti by writing a deed duly signed by her and her parents. Thereafter, petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (in short, “the Act”) was filed seeking custody of the minor girl, Akriti. Since the girl is residing at Agra, the said petition was not maintainable at Patiala in view of section 9 of the Act. Therefore, application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code was filed for rejection of the petition for want of territorial jurisdiction. The trial court dismissed the said application vide order impugned herein. Hence this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 9(1) of the Act, the Court at Patiala did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy regarding the custody of the minor daughter 2 C.R.No.4541 of 2011 namely Akriti. According to the petitioner, the minor daughter, Akriti was residing at Agra and in view of section 9(1) of the Act, the courts at Agra had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition. 4. Opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the trial Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It would be expedient to refer to section 9(1) of the Act which reads thus: “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.” 7. Sub Section 1 of the above noted provision spells out that the District Court which would have jurisdiction to entertain such petitions would be at place where the minor ordinarily resides. In the present case, it was not disputed that the residence of the minor was at Agra. Once that was so, in such a situation, the Court at Patiala clearly lacked jurisdiction and the trial Court erred in rejecting the application of the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The prayer for return of the plaint is accepted. The trial court shall return the plaint filed by the respondent for being presented before the court of competent jurisdiction. November 29, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3