2025:HHC:6391 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.487/2023. Date of Decision: 17th March, 2025. Rohit Mahajan. .....Petitioner Versus Jitika Mahajan ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). A petition under Sections 7 and 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 for custody of minor child had been filed by the present respondent before the learned trial Court. In the same, an application was filed by the present petitioner whereby a challenge was laid to the jurisdiction of the trial Court to try the lis, in the case at hand. The aforesaid application so filed was dismissed vide impugned order dated 06.06.2023. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Section 9(I) of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 reads as follows:- 9: Court Having Jurisdiction to entertain application (I) 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. 4. The petition for custody of the minor children, in the case at hand, was filed before the trial Court on 23.12.2021. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:6391 From a perusal of the petition so filed, it is evident that the cause of action accrued in favour of the present respondent on 11.10.2021, when the present petitioner did not allow the minor children to go with the present respondent. Immediately after the accrual of the aforesaid cause of action on 11.11.2021, the present petitioner had filed an application a complaint with the concerned Police Chowki at Dehar qua a theft. From a perusal of the same, specifically para 1 thereof, it is evident that the present petitioner had categorically stated therein that he is a resident of Village and Post Office Dehar, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, HP. As has been stated supra, the petition for custody had been filed on 23.12.2021. 5. Taking into account Section 9(I) of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, the trial Court has correctly held that in order to determine jurisdiction the Court has to ascertain where the children whose custody is being sought were residing on the date when the petition was filed. 6. From the complaint made on 11.11.2021 with the concerned Police Chowki, immediately preceding the filing of the petition on 23.12.2021 and for the reasons stated by the trial Court in the impugned order, it is evident that the children were residing within jurisdiction of the trial Court at the time of filing of the petition seeking custody by the present respondent. 8. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The scope of jurisdiction of 3 2025:HHC:6391 High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has been expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: (i) In Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, it has been held as under:- “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re- weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” (iii) In Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181, it has been held as under:- “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute conclusion, for its own that of decision the on facts inferior court and or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” 9. Thus, from the above stated exposition of law, it is clear that this Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to 4 2025:HHC:6391 interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. On the other hand in the supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. 10. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated herein above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. 12. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Family Court Sundernagar, District Mandi, HP on 10.04.2025 and the records be sent forthwith. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 17th March, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)