- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Smt. Aishwarya Malviya (Dubey) v. Abdhishek Malviya Qs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT ON THE 2ndOF JULY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 6041 of 2024
SMT. AISHWARYA MALVIYA (DUBEY) AND OTHERS
Versus
ABDHISHEK MALVIYA QS
Appearance:
Shri Anuj Singh - Advocate for petitioners. Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 23.07.2024, contained in Annexure P/1, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Damoh in MJC-14/2023. By said order, visitation rights were allowed to respondent.
2. Counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that trial Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to pass such an order. As per Section 9 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, application is to be filed in District Court having jurisdiction in the place where minor ordinarily resides. It is submitted that minor resides at Banglore. It is further submitted that petition at Bangalore has also been preferred by grand parents.
3. No objection has been raised before the Family Court regarding the territorial jurisdiction. Since no objection regarding territorial jurisdiction was raised by petitioners before the Family Court, therefore, they have submitted to jurisdiction of Court and it cannot be said that order is without jurisdiction.
4. At this stage, counsel appearing for petitioners relied upon judgment of
1
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
Apex Court in case of Zuari Cement Limited vs Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad and others, reported in (2015) 7 SCC
690.
5. Perused the judgment.
6. Apex Court in case of Zuari Cement Limited (supra) held that High Court or Act of respondent-Corporation subjecting itself to jurisdiction of the ESI Court, which it did not have, would not confer the jurisdiction upon ESI Court to determine the question of grant and validity of exemption from operation of the ESI Act. Question, which was before the Court, was regarding want of jurisdiction by Court and not of territorial jurisdiction, which is only lack of jurisdiction or irregular exercise of jurisdiction. Territorial jurisdiction i.e. lack of jurisdiction can be waived off by consent of parties, but want of jurisdiction in Court cannot be waived off. No objection was raised regarding territorial jurisdiction of Court, which passed order and said issue of jurisdiction for the first time cannot be raised before this Court in miscellaneous petition.
7. In view of same, no interference is called for in impugned order. Petition is dismissed.
vkt
2
Alert