Delhi High Court
Mr Nitin Khetan vs Mrs Ekta Khetan on 27 May, 2022
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 1207/2021, CM APPL. 47204/2021, CM APPL. 6927/2022 &
CM APPL. 25024/2022
MR NITIN KHETAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Bharat Arora, Advocate
versus
MRS EKTA KHETAN ..... Respondent
Through: None.
% Date of Decision: 27th May, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 10.12.2021 passed by
the learned Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in
G.P.No.39/21. The impugned order dated 10.12.2022 passed by the Trial
Court is reproduced hereinbelow:
"10.12.2021
File taken up today on two application filed on behalf of
petitioner out of which one is for initiating contempt proceedings
against the respondent for disobedience and non-compliance of
order dated 30.10.2021 and another application for visitation
rights of both the minor children namely 'K' aged about 8 years
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI VERMA
Signing Date:31.05.2022
11:29:47
and 'V' aged about 2 years to the petitioner during the Winter
Vacations.
Present: Sh. Pradeep Gahlot, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
Heard. File perused.
In the application for initiation of contempt proceedings
against the respondent, it is mentioned in para no. 8 of the
application that the respondent made a request to the school and
got the name minor child of 'K' stuck off from the school roll vide
circular No. DPS/RECI17 dated 28.10.2021 and respondent has
forcibly taken the children to Kanpur in a fit of rage. It is further
mentioned that child 'K' has been re-admitted to the school
because of numerous requests made by petitioner to the principal
of the school and after payment of re-admission fee as per the
school rules. It is further mentioned in para no. 9 of the
application that respondent has intentionally removed child 'K'
from Delhi Public School, Mathura Road and respondent has
given in writing to the school to strike off the name of child 'K'
and got issued "Transfer Certificate" and this speaks volume that
respondent has no concern about the welfare of the minor
children. Similar averments are made in the another application
for visitation rights filed on behalf of petitioner.
The notice of the petition was issued to the respondent and on the
notice it was reported that the respondent has left for U.P for the
last many months. Thereafter, order dated 30.10.2021 was
passed by this court. The petitioner himself in both the
applications has mentioned that the respondent gave in writing to
the school authorities and got the name of 'K' stuck off from the
school roll vide circular No. DPS/RECI17 dated 28.10.2021. As
per para no. 8 of the application child 'K' has been re-admitted
to the school because of numerous requests made by petitioner to
the principal of the school and after payment of re-admission fee
as per the school rules.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI VERMA
Signing Date:31.05.2022
11:29:47
It is not made clear by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that
whether both the children are residing within the jurisdiction of
this court or not. For issuance of
notice of both the applications and for maintainability of the
present petition, it is required to place on record any document
to show that both the children are residing within the jurisdiction
of this court and this court has jurisdiction to try and entertain
the present petition as well as both the applications filed on
behalf of petitioner.
As per Section 9 of The Guardians and Wards Act "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".
Thus, as per averments of both the applications, both the minor
children are not residing within the jurisdiction of this court and
they are residing in U.P.
It is not made clear whether the child 'K' has attended the school
after his re-admission and payment of school fee by the
petitioner. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to place on
record any document to show that both the children are residing
within the jurisdiction of this court. Thereafter, notice of both the
application be issued to the respondent. Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner is at liberty to file any documents to show that both the
children are residing within the jurisdiction of this court.
Matter be listed for date already fixed i.e. 25.03.2022. Copy of
order be given dasti as prayed by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner."
2. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though
there are materials on record, still the trial court had asked for more
documents to decide the question of jurisdiction. Second grievance is that a
long date has been given which practically has deprived the petitioner-father
from his visitation rights. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent is not appearing even before this Court only with an intention to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI VERMA
Signing Date:31.05.2022
11:29:47
delay the matter. Learned counsel further submits that he would be satisfied
if the direction is given to the trial court to decide the question of
jurisdiction and the application moved for visitation rights expeditiously.
3. It has been informed that next date fixed before the learned trial court
is 02nd June, 2022. The learned trial court is requested to take up the matter
on the date fixed and decide the question of jurisdiction and application
moved for visitation rights in accordance with law.
4. With these observations, the petition along with all pending
applications stands disposed of.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
MAY 27, 2022/rb
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI VERMA
Signing Date:31.05.2022
11:29:47
