Bombay High Court
Archana Purshottam Adhave vs Sampada Milind Bontalwar on 8 July, 2016
Author: Z.A. Haq
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp7222.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.7222 OF 2014
Archana Purshottam Adhave,
Aged about 38 years,
R/o Sai Akansha Tutorial Poddar
Bagicha, Beside Dr. Shailja Mende,
Ram Nagar, Wardha - 442 001.
ig .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Sampada Milind Bontalwar,
Aged about 40 years,
R/o Tapowan, Suraksha Colony,
Amravati.
2) Shri Milind Vijayrao Bontalwar,
Aged about 46 years,
R/o Tapowan, Suraksha Colony,
Amravati. .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Shri D.S. Jagyasi, Advocate for the petitioner,
Shri C.A. Babrekar, Advocate for the respondent No.1,
Shri R.G. Kavimandan, Advocate h/f. Shri S.A. Mohta, Advocate for the
respondent No.2.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATED : 8
JULY, 2016
th
::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:37:22 :::
2 wp7222.14
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard Shri D.S. Jagyasi, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri C.A. Babrekar, Advocate for the respondent No.1 and Shri R.G. Kavimandan, Advocate h/f. Shri S.A. Mohta, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The respondent No.1 is wife of respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 gave birth to a girl child on 09-01-2014 at Amravati.
On 10-01-2014, the respondent No.2 executed a deed by which the baby girl is given in adoption to the petitioner. On 06-03-2014, another deed is executed reiterating that the baby girl is given in adoption to the petitioner. This deed dated 06-03-2014 is signed by the respondent No.1 reflecting her willingness for adoption. The petitioner resides at Wardha.
4. On 09-07-2014, the respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 9(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. In this application, the respondent No.1 prayed that the deeds of ::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:37:22 ::: 3 wp7222.14 adoption dated 10-01-2014 and 06-03-2014 executed by the present respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner be declared as null and void. The respondent No.1 further prayed for declaration that the respondent No.1 is entitled for the custody of baby girl Avani and for directions to the present petitioner to handover the custody of baby girl Avani to the respondent No.1. The petitioner raised preliminary objection to the tenability of the proceedings before the Court at Amravati on the ground that as the minor is residing with the present petitioner at Wardha, the Court at Amravati is not having jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings. The learned District Judge has rejected the preliminary objection by the impugned order.
5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that as per Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the application in respect to guardian of the person of minor is maintainable before the District Court having jurisdiction in respect of the place where the minor ordinarily resides. It is submitted that the minor is residing with the present petitioner at Wardha since 10-01-2014 and therefore, the place of ordinary residence of minor has to be treated as Wardha and the Court at Amravati will not have jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings filed by the respondent No.1. To support the submission, ::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:37:22 ::: 4 wp7222.14 the learned Advocate has relied on the judgment given in the case of Annie Besant vs. Gnarayaniah reported in 1914 Law Suit (Bombay) 55 and the judgment given in the case of Aparna Banerjee vs. Tapan Banerjee reported in AIR 1986 Punjab and Haryana 113.
6. The claim of the respondent No.1 is that the adoption deeds dated 10-01-2014 and 06-03-2014 are null and void.
Admittedly, these two adoption deeds are executed at Amravati. The cause of action for challenging the legality of the two adoption deeds arises at Amravati. As per Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction part of cause of action has arisen, can entertain and decide the proceedings.
In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the conclusions of the learned District Judge that the proceedings filed by the respondent No.1 before the District Court, Amravati are maintainable.
The judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner deal with the challenge raised in the proceedings in which claim for guardianship simplicitor was raised. The judgments are not of any assistance to the petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:37:22 :::5 wp7222.14
7. The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
8. At this stage, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has requested that the interim order granted earlier may be continued for six weeks to enable the petitioner to take appropriate steps in the matter. The petitioner has not been able to point out any prejudice if the interim order is not continued. The prayer is rejected.
JUDGE adgokar CERTIFICATE "I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment."
Uploaded by : P.M. Adgokar. Uploaded on : 16-07-2016. P.A. ::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:37:22 :::