Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

I.Bastin vs D.William ... 1St

Madras High Court|23 March, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking to withdraw G.W.O.P.No.35 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram and transfer the same to the I Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli for joint enquiry with G.W.O.P.No.43 of 2013.
2. The first respondent and the daughter of the petitioner got married on 09.06.1988 and a female child, namely, Rachel Madonna was born in the wedlock. The wife of the first respondent died due to brain tumor. Thereafter, the child of the first respondent was made to be with the petitioner. However, the first respondent filed G.W.O.P.No.35 of 2013 before the Principal District Court, Villupuram, seeking custody of the minor child. The petitioner also filed G.W.O.P.No.43 of 2013 before the I Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli, to appoint and declare him as guardian of the minor child, namely, Rachel Madonna, till she attains majority.
3. Now, the petitioner has come before this Court seeking to transfer G.W.O.P.No.35 of 2013 before the Principal District Court, Villupuram, to the file of the I Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli, to be tried along with G.W.O.P.No.43 of 2013.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the minor child is residing with him in Tiruchirappalli and the petitioner is taking care of the minor child and as per Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, any application regarding the guardianship of the minor child should normally be filed in the place where the minor child ordinarily resides and hence, he prays for allowing this petition.
5. He has also produced a copy of the certificate from the school where the minor child studied between 2013 and 2016 to prove that the minor child is residing with the petitioner in Tiruchirappalli.
6. However, the learned Counsel for the first respondent as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 would vehemently oppose the relief sought for by the petitioner.
7. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for either side and perused the materials available on record.
8. Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, reads as follows: "9 . Court having jurisdiction to entertain application.- (1) 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.
If the application is with respect of the guardianship of the property of the minor, it may be made either to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides or to a District Court having jurisdiction in the place where he has property.
If an application with respect to the guardianship of the property of a minor is made to a District Court other than that having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides, the Court may return the application if in its opinion the application would be disposed of more justly on conveniently by any other District Court having jurisdiction."
(emphasis supplied.)
9. From the above, it is crystal clear that if any application is filed with respect to the guardianship of the person of a minor, it shall be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides and no doubt, the interest of the minor child is of paramount importance and accordingly, a prima facie case has been made by the petitioner to transfer G.W.O.P.No.35 of 2013 from the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram to the file of the I Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli, to be tried along with G.W.O.P.No.43 of 2013.
10. Accordingly, G.W.O.P.No.35 of 2013 from the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram, is transferred to the file of the I Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli, to be tried along with G.W.O.P.No.43 of 2013.
11. In the result, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is ordered as above. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The Principal District Court, Villupuram.
2.The I Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli..
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

I.Bastin vs D.William ... 1St

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
23 March, 2017