Skip to content


Smt. Renu Vs. Prem Sunder - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. No. 14554-CII of 2004
Judge
Reported in(2006)143PLR95
ActsGuardian and Wards Act, 1890 - Sections 25
AppellantSmt. Renu
RespondentPrem Sunder
Appellant Advocate Munish Garg and; Priya Gupta, Advs.
Respondent Advocate R.K. Dahiya, Adv.
Cases ReferredPrem Sunder v. Smt. Renu
Excerpt:
.....for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in..........under section 25 of the act at sonepat alleging that the ordinary residence of the minor at yamuna nagar is forcible under threat and, therefore, cannot be considered relevant for determining the jurisdiction of the court.3. it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner has remarried but the child is living with his maternal grand-father. however, it is admitted that the maternal grand-father is also residing at yamuna nagar. therefore, it is evident that the minor is residing at yamuna nagar. the question whether such residence is forcible or under threat or not could be decided only after evidence is led by the parties. but, prima facie, the petitioner has made out a case for transfer of the petition under section 25 of the act to yamuna nagar.4. keeping in view the said.....
Judgment:

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The petitioner has sought transfer of petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') filed by the respondent for the custody of the minor son.

2. The marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce. The respondent has filed a petition under Section 25 of the Act at Sonepat alleging that the ordinary residence of the minor at Yamuna Nagar is forcible under threat and, therefore, cannot be considered relevant for determining the jurisdiction of the Court.

3. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner has remarried but the child is living with his maternal grand-father. However, it is admitted that the maternal grand-father is also residing at Yamuna Nagar. Therefore, it is evident that the minor is residing at Yamuna Nagar. The question whether such residence is forcible or under threat or not could be decided only after evidence is led by the parties. But, prima facie, the petitioner has made out a case for transfer of the petition under Section 25 of the Act to Yamuna Nagar.

4. Keeping in view the said fact, petition titled Prem Sunder v. Smt. Renu, pending in the Court of Guardian and Wards Judge, Sonepat, shall stand transferred to the Court of District Judge, Yamuna Nagar. Learned District Judge may entrust the case to any other Court of competent jurisdiction.

The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, on 6.3.2006.

The civil miscellaneous stands disposed of accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //