[2025:RJ-JP:19271] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 22/2025 Smt. Kanta D/o Sh. Ramotar Verma, Presently W/o Amit, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Gadli The.- Mundawar. Presently Residing At Krishi City, Phase - First, Merigold 94, Tapukda, The - Tapukda, Dist.- Alwar, Actually Divorced W/o Late Shri Kamlesh Kumar, R/o - Mohalla Buchaheda, Nagaji Ki Gaur, Near Ramdev, Kotputli, Dist. Kotputli - Behror, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Smt. Maina Devi W/o Sh. Sundar Lal, Aged about 60 years, R/o Bahadurpur, The. And Dist. - Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Jamasi, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 08 /05/2025 This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by Family Court No.1, Alwar in Civil Misc. Case No.359/2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent filed a petition against the petitioner under Section 8 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking custody of Prachi Singh @ Pihu. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that at the time of presentation of the petition, report was made by the [2025:RJ-JP:19271] (2 of 3) [CR-22/2025] concerned clerk that it is not proper to entertain the petition. After that, objection of the petitioner was reserved and petition was registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner filed an application before the family court under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC that the petition filed by the respondent was not proper and it should be filed in Kotputli but family court vide order dated 18.12.2024 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, petition for guardianship should be filed where the ward is residing. So, order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the family court be set aside and petition filed by the respondent be directed to be returned for its presentation before the proper jurisdictional court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Lahari Sakhmuri Vs. Sobhan Kodali in Civil Appeal Nos.3135-3136 of 2019 decided on 15.03.2019 and (2) Dheeraj Vs. Smt. Chetna Goswami in First Appeal No.373/2024 decided on 15.05.2024. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that family court rightly came to the conclusion that petition was maintainable before family court and also rightly observed that issue of jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact, which would be decided after evidence of the parties. So, present petition filed by the petitioner being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:19271] (3 of 3) [CR-22/2025] I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent. It is an admitted position that birth certificate of the ward Prachi Singh @ Pihu submitted by the petitioner as well as respondent are of different places. The family court while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner mentioned that as per Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, petition should be filed at the place of ordinary residence of the ward and as per birth certificate, family court rightly considered the residence of the ward in District Alwar. So, in my considered opinion, family court has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. So, present petition filed by the petitioner being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /121