Thulium @ Balina Naga Deepika v. Thulluru Radha Krishna

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in G.W.O.P.No. 1087 of 2024 on the file of the Hon’ble XIV Additional District cum Family Court Judge at Vijayawada. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DODDALA PRUDHVI TEJA Counsel for the Respondent (SR): None appeared Counsel for the Respondent: — The Court made the following order: APHC010194132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1221/2025 Between: Thulluru @ Balina Naga Deepika ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT Thulluru Radha Krishna Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.DODDALA PRUDHVI TEJA Counsel for the Respondent:

The Court made the following: the honourable SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION petition nO: 1221/2025 ORDER: Heard Sri D. Prudhvi Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

By means of the present petition under Article 227 of Constitution India, the prayer made is as follows; Pi'^yed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the C.R.P. and set aside the proceedings in G.W.O.P.No.1087 of 2024 on the file of the Hon’ble XIV Additional District - cum - Family Court Judge at Vijayawada on account of lack of jurisdiction and grant such other relief as Hon ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

The petitioner is the mother of the Ward and respondent is the father. The respondent filed GWOP.NO.1027 of 2024 in the Court of XIV Additional District - cum Family Court Judge at Vijayawada under the Sections 10 & 25 of Guardian & Wards Act and seeking restoration of the custody of the minor son. In the said case the present petitioner has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to dismiss the said case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in the concerned Court on the averment that the minor is currently staying and residing with his mother in the State of Telangana. So Vijayawada Court has no jurisdiction. He further submits that learned Court has passed the orders for protection of the child before the Court concerned. He further submits that the respondent in his petition has himself stated that the minor is presently residing within the jurisdiction of the Medchal District Court, Kukatpalli, Hyderabad. Consequently he submits that the said GWOP ought not to have been even registered.

A perusal of prayer in Civil Revision Petition shows that the petitioner has prayed to set aside the proceedings of GWOP on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

The question is whether the learned Trial Court has the territorial jurisdiction or not on the ground that the child presently resides not within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned?

Objection of territorial jurisdiction has been raised under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Such an issue has to be decided by the Court concerned and not by the Registry which has registered the GWOP. The Court concerned shall consider that aspect of jurisdiction in due course of time, keeping in view inter- alia the legal provisions under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890.

Present is not the stage for this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India to enter into question of fact regarding the place where the minor ordinarily resides for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. Such an exercise deserves to be conducted by the Trial Court at the initial stage. Every Court is competent to determine its own jurisdiction.

There is no challenge to the orders directing the production of the child in the said Court.

There is also no prayer for any direction to the Court concerned with respect to the application under Order 7 Rule 11 cPC

The prayer for which the CRP has been filed cannot be allowed at this A stage of the proceedings.

Accordingly, CRP is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. Sd/- A VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECfTTdNOFFICER To,

1. The XIV Additional District Judge - cum-Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada Krishna District.

2. One CC to SRI. DODDALA PRUDHVI TEJA, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:20/06/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 1221 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE CRP