[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Surja Ram Alias Suresh vs Leela (2026:Rj-Jd:11910-Db) on 12 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:11910-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 565/2026
Surja Ram Alias Suresh S/o Khangaram, Aged About 35 Years,
R/orajva, Mandore, District Jodhpur. Second Address Village
Suvaliya,tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Leela D/o Sita Ram, R/o Near Bheru Ji Temple, Chopda
Badi, Gangashahar, Bikaner.
2. Pushpa Devi W/o Sita Ram, R/o Near Bheru Ji Temple,
chopda Badi, Gangashahar, Bikaner
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Jaitawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anirudh Purohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order(Oral)
12/03/2026
Per : Arun Monga, J
1. The appellant-father of the minor daughter, has preferred the
present appeal assailing the final judgment and order dated
13.01.2026 passed by the learned Family Court No. 3, Bikaner in
Civil Misc. Case No. 03/2026 (CIS No. 717/2025), whereby the
application filed by the respondents-mother and maternal
grandmother of the minor under Sections 7, 17 and 25 of the
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking restoration of custody of
the minor daughter, was allowed.
2. Facts of the case leading to the present appeal are that the
respondents filed an application under Sections 7, 17 and 25 of
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 01:10:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11910-DB] (2 of 5) [CMA-565/2026]
the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 before the Family Court No. 3,
Bikaner seeking custody of the minor child. Respondent No.1 is
the mother and respondent No.2 is the maternal grandmother.
Respondent No.1 was married to the appellant on 09.07.2011 at
Bikaner and from the wedlock a daughter, namely Ritu @ Riddhi,
was born on 17.12.2014.
2.1. The respondents alleged that after some time of marriage,
the appellant began harassing and ill-treating respondent No.1
and also assaulted her and the minor child. Owing to such
conduct, respondent No.1 was compelled to stay at her parental
house for considerable period of time. It was further alleged that
the appellant induced her to sign blank stamp papers on the
pretext of purchasing land and constructing a house at Bikaner.
2.2. According to the respondents, respondent No.1 later
discovered that the appellant had allegedly misused those signed
papers and prepared a divorce agreement in the year 2019 on a
stamp paper of Rs. 500, incorporating terms relating to custody of
the minor child without her knowledge. It was further alleged that
the appellant falsely mentioned witnesses, including the father of
respondent No.1, in the said agreement.
2.3. It was also alleged that the appellant subsequently took
away the minor daughter from respondent No.1. Consequently,
respondent No.1 filed an application under Sections 100, 101 and
103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the
Judicial Magistrate seeking recovery of custody. The Magistrate
directed the police to conduct an inquiry and record the
statements of the parties and the minor child.
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 01:10:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11910-DB] (3 of 5) [CMA-565/2026]
2.4. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application before the
Family Court No. 3, Bikaner, which was registered as Civil Misc.
Case No. 03/2026. It is stated that notice of the proceedings was
not properly served upon the appellant, resulting in ex-parte
proceedings. After recording evidence of the respondents, the
learned Family Court allowed the application and granted custody
of the minor child through impugned judgment dated 13.01.2026.
2.5. Hence, this instant appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the impugned
judgment dated 13.01.2026 has been passed ex-parte without
properly considering the true facts of the case. It is submitted that
the Family Court relied only on the statements and allegations of
the respondents. The notice was not duly served upon the
appellant, yet the court proceeded ex-parte, rendering the
judgment legally unsustainable.
3.1. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant is the
natural guardian of the minor daughter and has been properly
looking after her welfare, education and upbringing. As per the
mutual divorce agreement dated 17.12.2019, it was agreed that in
case respondent No.1 remarries, the custody of the minor would
remain with the appellant. Since respondent No.1 remarried in
2019, the minor has been living happily with the appellant and
studying in school.
3.2. It is also argued that respondent No.2 has repeatedly
initiated proceedings only to harass the appellant. Earlier, a
habeas corpus petition filed before the High Court was dismissed,
and an application under Sections 100, 101 and 103 of the BNSS
was also rejected by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Despite this,
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 01:10:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11910-DB] (4 of 5) [CMA-565/2026]
the respondents continued to pursue litigation merely to
pressurize the appellant regarding custody of the minor child.
3.3. Lastly, learned counsel contends that the Family Court at
Bikaner lacked territorial jurisdiction under Section 9 of the
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, as the minor has been ordinarily
residing with the appellant in District Jodhpur.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The parties
are also present in person along with the minor child and being a
family matter we endeavored to bring forth an amicable solution.
However, upon interacting with parties, it appears that, at this
stage, there is no possibility of a mutually agreeable settlement.
5. Qua merits of the appeal, at the very outset, learned counsel
for the respondents, upon instructions from his clients who are
present in Court, fairly submits that he would have no objection if
the impugned order is set aside, particularly as one of the
principal grounds urged in the appeal is that the appellant was not
properly served in the proceedings before the learned Family
Court. He further submits that, in the event the matter is
remanded, the learned Family Court may consider the case afresh
after the appellant enters appearance and both sides are afforded
a proper opportunity of hearing.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant states that he has no
objection to the course suggested by the respondents.
7. Thus, in view of the consensus arrived at between the
parties through their learned counsel, the impugned order is set
aside.
8. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Family
Court on 20.04.2026. The learned Family Court shall thereafter
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 01:10:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11910-DB] (5 of 5) [CMA-565/2026]
proceed to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders
in accordance with law after affording both sides adequate
opportunity to adduce their respective evidence.
9. Also, the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, which has
been raised during the course of arguments, is left open to be
considered and decided by the learned Family Court in accordance
with law.
10. Similarly, the question of visitation rights, which has been
sought on behalf of the respondents during the course of
arguments, shall also remain open to be decided by the learned
Family Court upon an appropriate application being filed in that
regard.
11. The instant appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
12. Any pending applications also stand disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (ARUN MONGA),J
104-Abhishekk/Amar-
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 01:10:37 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
