Archana Purshottam Adhave vs Sampada Milind Bontalwar
2016 Latest Caselaw 3674 Bom

                                            1                                              wp7222.14




                                                                                        
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     




                                                                
                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


     WRIT PETITION NO.7222 OF 2014




                                                               
     Archana Purshottam Adhave, 
     Aged about 38 years, 
     R/o Sai Akansha Tutorial Poddar




                                               
     Bagicha, Beside Dr. Shailja Mende,
     Ram Nagar, Wardha - 442 001.
                              ig                                         ....       PETITIONER


                         VERSUS
                            
     1) Sampada Milind Bontalwar, 
         Aged about 40 years, 
      

         R/o Tapowan, Suraksha Colony, 
         Amravati.
   



     2) Shri Milind Vijayrao Bontalwar, 
         Aged about 46 years, 
         R/o Tapowan, Suraksha Colony, 





         Amravati.                                                       ....       RESPONDENTS


     ______________________________________________________________
                 Shri D.S. Jagyasi, Advocate for the petitioner, 





             Shri C.A. Babrekar, Advocate for the respondent No.1,
     Shri R.G. Kavimandan, Advocate h/f. Shri S.A. Mohta, Advocate for the
                               respondent No.2.
     ______________________________________________________________


                                   CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 8 JULY, 2016 th

2 wp7222.14

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri D.S. Jagyasi, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri

C.A. Babrekar, Advocate for the respondent No.1 and Shri

R.G. Kavimandan, Advocate h/f. Shri S.A. Mohta, Advocate for the

respondent No.2.

2.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The respondent No.1 is wife of respondent No.2. The

respondent No.1 gave birth to a girl child on 09-01-2014 at Amravati.

On 10-01-2014, the respondent No.2 executed a deed by which the

baby girl is given in adoption to the petitioner. On 06-03-2014,

another deed is executed reiterating that the baby girl is given in

adoption to the petitioner. This deed dated 06-03-2014 is signed by

the respondent No.1 reflecting her willingness for adoption. The

petitioner resides at Wardha.

4. On 09-07-2014, the respondent No.1 filed an application

under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with

Section 9(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. In

this application, the respondent No.1 prayed that the deeds of

3 wp7222.14

adoption dated 10-01-2014 and 06-03-2014 executed by the present

respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner be declared as null and

void. The respondent No.1 further prayed for declaration that the

respondent No.1 is entitled for the custody of baby girl Avani and for

directions to the present petitioner to handover the custody of baby

girl Avani to the respondent No.1. The petitioner raised preliminary

objection to the tenability of the proceedings before the Court at

Amravati on the ground that as the minor is residing with the present

petitioner at Wardha, the Court at Amravati is not having jurisdiction

to entertain the proceedings. The learned District Judge has rejected

the preliminary objection by the impugned order.

5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that

as per Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the application

in respect to guardian of the person of minor is maintainable before

the District Court having jurisdiction in respect of the place where the

minor ordinarily resides. It is submitted that the minor is residing with

the present petitioner at Wardha since 10-01-2014 and therefore, the

place of ordinary residence of minor has to be treated as Wardha and

the Court at Amravati will not have jurisdiction to entertain the

proceedings filed by the respondent No.1. To support the submission,

4 wp7222.14

the learned Advocate has relied on the judgment given in the case of

Annie Besant vs. Gnarayaniah reported in 1914 Law Suit (Bombay)

55 and the judgment given in the case of Aparna Banerjee vs. Tapan

Banerjee reported in AIR 1986 Punjab and Haryana 113.

6. The claim of the respondent No.1 is that the adoption

deeds dated 10-01-2014 and 06-03-2014 are null and void.

Admittedly, these two adoption deeds are executed at Amravati. The

cause of action for challenging the legality of the two adoption deeds

arises at Amravati. As per Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil

Procedure, the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction part

of cause of action has arisen, can entertain and decide the proceedings.

In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the conclusions of the

learned District Judge that the proceedings filed by the respondent

No.1 before the District Court, Amravati are maintainable.

The judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate for

the petitioner deal with the challenge raised in the proceedings in

which claim for guardianship simplicitor was raised. The judgments

are not of any assistance to the petitioner.

5 wp7222.14

7. The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties

to bear their own costs.

8. At this stage, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has

requested that the interim order granted earlier may be continued for

six weeks to enable the petitioner to take appropriate steps in the

matter. The petitioner has not been able to point out any prejudice if

the interim order is not continued. The prayer is rejected.

JUDGE

adgokar

CERTIFICATE

"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment."

Uploaded by : P.M. Adgokar. Uploaded on : 16-07-2016. P.A.