Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 754 (RAJ)

Ram Kishor Tiwari v. Smt. Jai shree

2013-04-15

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging validity of order dated 23.02.2013 passed by District Judge, Merta in Civil Misc. Application No. 47/2012 whereby, two applications filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of Guardians and Wards Act as well as another application under Section 12 of Guardians and Wards Act were rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was filed by the respondent wife before the trial court raising ground of jurisdiction. The trial court for the purpose of deciding the application filed under Section 10 of Guardians and Wards Act returned in accordance with Order 7 Rule 10A of CPC to file before the District Court/Family Court, Hyderabad in view of the fact that wife and children are residing at Hyderabad and marriage of petitioner and non-petitioner was solemnized at Hyderabad but the application filed under Section 9 of Guardian and Wards Act was also dismissed on the ground that application filed under Section 10 of the Act has been returned to be filed before the competent court, therefore, it is proper for the petitioner to file an application under Section 12 before the same Court at Hyderabad. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order impugned is illegal because the property of petitioner and his legal heirs is situated at Riyan Badi, therefore, trial court was under an obligation to entertain the application filed under Section 12 of Guardian and Wards Act at Merta but contrary to law, the District Court, Merta refused to decide the application filed under Section 12 and 9 of Guardians and Wards Act for the reason that the application filed under Section 10 of the said Act has been returned in accordance with Order 7 Rule 10A of CPC. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that application filed under Section 12 & 9 are required to be decided by the District Court, Merta because property of petitioner's family is situated at Riyan Badi, therefore, order impugned may be quashed because it suffers from patent illegality. 6. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that application filed under Section 12 & 9 are required to be decided by the District Court, Merta because property of petitioner's family is situated at Riyan Badi, therefore, order impugned may be quashed because it suffers from patent illegality. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that once the Court passed an order that cause of action arises at Hyderabad upon the facts and returned the application filed under Section 10 of the Act to be filed before District Judge/Family Court, Hyderabad then obviously all proceedings are required to be decided by the said Court. It is not proper to direct the trial court to decide one matter at Merta and second at Hyderabad. 7. In view of above, I see no reason to interfere in the order impugned. The writ petition is hereby dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******