Anima Gupta Vs. Tarun Kumar Gupta

Anima Gupta vs Tarun Kumar Gupta

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Sep 18, 2002

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/488709

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/488709
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: B.K. Rathi, J.
Decided On: Sep 18, 2002
Case Number: Civil Revn. No. 405 of 2001
Subject: Family
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue: Family
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Sections 9

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anima Gupta

Advocate V.K. Jaiswal, Adv.

Respondent

Tarun Kumar Gupta

Advocate Usha Kiran, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Sections 9
Reported In: AIR2003All76

Excerpt

.....the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. orderb.k. rathi, j.1. the opposite party moved an application under section 25 of guardians & wards act read with section 6 of the hindu minority and guardianship act for appointment of guardian and custody of minor abhineet. the opposite party is the father and the applicant is the mother of the minor. the applicant contested the application. she also raised a preliminary objection thatminor abhineet is ordinarily residing in gauhati (assam) and, therefore, the district judge. ghaziabad has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application. the trial court decided this matter as a preliminary objection and has held that the application can be entertained and decided at ghaziabad. aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred. 2. i have heard sri v. k. jaiswal, learned counsel for the revisionist and miss. usha kiran, learned counsel for the opposite party. 3. the position is not disputed that section 9 of the guardians and wards act provide that if the application is for appointment of guardian of the person of the minor, it shall be made to the district judge having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides. 4. it is contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party that a divorce petition was pending between the parties which was taken up in the lok adalat on 11-5-2000. at that time the minor abhineet was ordinarily living with the opposite party and was present in the court; that on that day he was taken by the applicant and was sent to gauhati at the residence of the brother of the applicant; that the age of the minor is only six years. it is further contended that the address of the applicant is b-5, nehru apartment, nehru nagar, ghaziabad and she is living there and notice of this case was, also served on the applicant at this address. 5. as against this, the contention of the applicant is that the minor is ordinarily living in gauhati. the applicant has filed the certificate of the head master of airport.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

B.K. Rathi, J.

1. The opposite party moved an application under Section 25 of Guardians & Wards Act read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act for appointment of guardian and custody of minor Abhineet. The opposite party is the father and the applicant is the mother of the minor. The applicant contested the application. She also raised a preliminary objection thatminor Abhineet is ordinarily residing in Gauhati (Assam) and, therefore, the District Judge. Ghaziabad has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application. The trial Court decided this matter as a preliminary objection and has held that the application can be entertained and decided at Ghaziabad. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.

2. I have heard Sri V. K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Miss. Usha Kiran, learned counsel for the opposite party.

3. The position is not disputed that Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act provide that if the application is for appointment of guardian of the person of the minor, it shall be made to the District Judge having jurisdiction in the place where the minor Ordinarily resides.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party that a divorce petition was pending between the parties which was taken up in the Lok Adalat on 11-5-2000. At that time the minor Abhineet was ordinarily living with the opposite party and was present in the Court; that on that day he was taken by the applicant and was sent to Gauhati at the residence of the brother of the applicant; that the age of the minor is only six years. It is further contended that the address of the applicant is B-5, Nehru Apartment, Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad and she is living there and notice of this case was, also served on the applicant at this address.

5. As against this, the contention of the applicant is that the minor is ordinarily living in Gauhati. The applicant has filed the certificate of the Head Master of Airport Institution, Gauhati. Annexure-3 to the affidavit in which it is mentioned that Abhineet Gupta is minor and is studying in Class-1 from February. 2000 in the Airport Institution (Airport Authority of India, Gauhati-15). It is contended that this certificate shows that the minor is living in Gauhati since February, 2000; that the application for appointment of guardian was moved before the District Judge on 21-8-2002 and that time the minor was living at Gauhati.

6. It may also be mentioned that according to the opposite party, the minor was taken on 11-5-2000 by the applicant and was sent to Gauhati. The application was moved on 21-8-2000. Therefore, accordingto the applicant himself, at the time when the application was moved, the minor was ordinarily residing at Gauhati.

7. Accordingly, in accordance with the provision of Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, the application for custody is not maintainable in Courts at Ghaziabad. Application could be filed in the Courts at Gauhati.

8. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned order of the trial Court is set aside and it is found that the application under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act is not maintainable in Courts at Ghaziabad and is accordingly dismissed.

9. Considering the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2002 Same Parties Anima Gupta vs Tarun Kumar Gupta Same Subject Family Same Judge B.K. Rathi, J. Acts & Sections Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Sections 9

Family