RANCHI, India, Jan. 3 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Dec. 2:
1. Heard Ms. Malvika Rajkotia, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-02- 2024 passed by Sri Amitesh Lal, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 408/2023 whereby and whereunder, the guardianship application preferred by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground that the minor child in question does not "ordinarily resides" in Jamshedpur within the meaning of Section 9(1) of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890.
3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the learned trial court.
4. The petitioner (appellant herein) had filed an application under Section 7 and 17 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 against the respondent (respondent herein also) in which it has been stated that the petitioner and her parents went to USA in April 2018 and the petitioner and the respondent got married on 05-05-2018 in New Jersey, USA as per Hindu rites and customs. After the wedding, both the parties moved to the house of the respondent situated at Mountain View in the State of California. At the time of leaving New Jersey, all the petitioner's jewelry and heirloom trousseau were retained by the mother of the respondent. The petitioner in course of her marital life realized that the respondent was suffering from certain personality disorders, some of which were obsessive-compulsive disorders in nature. It has been stated that the respondent also suffered from financial paranoia and was a miserly spender. The respondent always used to keep tabs on the spending of the petitioner and despite bragging of a degree in Finance from Wharton and working in Google, he was averse to the use of technology. The petitioner, in the meantime, had become pregnant, but the respondent was thoroughly indifferent to the needs of the petitioner and under such circumstances, the parents of the petitioner arrived at California, USA in March 2019 towards the end of the third semester of pregnancy of the petitioner. The respondent behaved indifferently towards the parents of the petitioner and the parents of the petitioner visited her house only when absolutely necessary. On 09-05-2019, a girl child named Vindhya was born to the couple after a traumatic delivery. On the pretext of childbirth, the respondent took a month's paternity leave and stayed with the petitioner at her parents' house, but he did not mend his ways and spent his time either playing video games or talking on the phone with his sister. The relationship between the petitioner and the respondent deteriorated to such an extent that the respondent resorted to physical violence upon the petitioner which constrained the petitioner to leave the residence of the respondent at Mountain View along with her daughter for her parents' house on 05-02-2021.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqJjXyAoE2kFHdvNb%2B007pYUjUasiZvAi2daeXfsakhVn&caseno=FA/78/2024&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010104082024&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
