Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 50407 (KAR)

DR. D. SUDHIR S/O LATE D ASHOK RAO v. DR. JAYALAKSHMI MUSALE D/O MARUTHI MUSALE

MFA/101065/2024 · 2025-06-12

K V Aravind, R Devdas

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7572-DB MFA No. 101065 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101065 OF 2024 (GW) BETWEEN: DR. D. SUDHIR S/O. LATE D. ASHOK RAO, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN VIMS BALLARI, R/O. DOOR NO.83, WARD NO.27, JAWARI STREET, COWL BAZAR, BALLARI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE AND SRI. S.S. BETURMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: DR. JAYALAKSHMI MUSALE D/O. MARUTHI MUSALE, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. GOVT. MEDICAL OFFICER, R/O. SATHYA SAI SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL, OLD COURT LANE NEAR TMC, CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHRIKANT T.PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 47(A) OF GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT 1890, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2024 IN G&W.C. NO.7/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BALLARI AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE I.A. NO.5 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(D) R/W. SECTION 151 CPC AND SECTION 13 OF FAMILY COURTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7572-DB MFA No. 101065 of 2024 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) This Miscellaneous first appeal has been filed by the appellant who was the petitioner before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Ballari, aggrieved of the return of the petition to be present before the appropriate District Court in terms of Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. 2. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent, we find that the petition was filed by the appellant herein under Section 7 R/W Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardian ship Act, 1956 for grant of custody of the child to the petitioner. An application was filed by the respondent under Order 7 Rule - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7572-DB MFA No. 101065 of 2024 11(d) of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, on the ground that it was barred by law for having no territorial jurisdiction. 3. Although, we find that the respondent has quoted a wrong provision and the correct provision would have been Rule 10 of Order 7 which enables return of the suit for want of jurisdiction to be presented before a Court having jurisdiction, nevertheless, we find that the learned Prl. Judge, Family Court has rightly noticed sub section (1) of Section 9 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 which provides that 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. From the facts falling out of the petition, the learned judge has noticed that the petitioner has admitted that he was working as an Assistant Professor at VIMS, Bellari. The respondent on the other hand, is residing with her family members at Chikkodi. It has been alleged in the petition that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7572-DB MFA No. 101065 of 2024 respondent-wife has taken away the ward in question along with her and the child has been residing with respondent-wife at Chikkodi since 2019. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge has come to a conclusion that the petition was required to be filed in the Court of District Judge at Belagavi. In that view of the matter, we do not see any infirmity in the impugned order. 4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 5. However, we should notice the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that since there is a Family court at Belagavi, the petition may be presented before the Principal Family Judge at Belagavi and not before Principal District and Sessions Judge. If it is true that a Family Court has been established at Belagavi and since appeal was presented before the Family Court, at Ballari, it is open for the appellant to present before the Principal Family Court at Belagavi. Ordered accordingly. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7572-DB MFA No. 101065 of 2024 The concerned Court shall make all endeavors to dispose of the petition as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE HMB CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21