Perry Kansagra v. Master Aditya Vikram Kansagra and Anr

I C * IN TIlE HiGH C()URJ OF I)ELHJ AT NEW 1)ELH1 F'A() (OS) 320/2013 CM APP!.. 10792. 10793 & 108466/2013 P.lRRY KA.NSAGRA Appellant i'hrough: Mr. Anupam Srivastava with Mr. Anil Kumar Chandel and Ms. Nidhi Soni, Advocatcs. V C 15 U S • MASI'LR ADI'I'YA VIKRAM ANt) ANR. .... Respondents through: None.

(1) RAM: JI()N'BLE MR. JuSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT IR)N'RLE MR. JUSTICE NAJM1 WAZIRI 0 IR 1) E R .I9.07.2O3 CM APPLJO793/2013 (cxcmp1ioJ Allowed, subject to all just exception. • FA() (OS) 320/2013, CM APP1.10792/2013 (stay) & 10846/2013 (under Order XXXII CIC) the present appeal questions the order dated 4.7.2013 wherchy the learned Shìgle Judge recorded as lollows: - The present Suit is fl/cc! b y I/e plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent injunction resIrainifl the de/endanis, their agents ek'. fioni lelnoVing plaintijf A) / / 10/n the laW/ill LI1S/0(f1 o/plaintiff No.2 b y moving the minor plain/i/f No. I /ron7 Delhi i.e. the jurisdiction of this Court. ft is sli/)mnhiicc/ b y learned sentor counsel /or the plaintiff that the cle/emmuanis have a/reach' nioveci an Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. appropriate petItion befre the Family Court under the Guardian and Wards Act and hence the y have clearly indicated that they would befIlowing the due process u/law regarding the custody of the minor child. I-ic submits that in view of the above, the present Suit can be decreed in terms of the prayer regarding injunction. Learned counsel appearing for defendant submits that his client is willing to make a statement that he would fbi tak;e the minor child outside the jurisdiction of/his Court or the custody of plaint if no.2, except by due process of law provided the defCndants are permitted unsupervised custody of the child fOr three days fOr six hours as directed by this Court on 24th May, 2013 and/our Skype meetings . in a month as already directed by this Court. in my view, in the fOcts and circumstances u/this Case the present Suit can be disposed of at this stage itself List the matter for fInal arguments on 2nd August. 2013, On that date all pending applications shall also he heard. II is contended by Mr. Anupam Srivastava. counsel ibr th appellant/defendant that in line with the statement made before the Court. a proceeding under Sections 7 and 9 oF the Guardians and Wards Act, 1 890 has been prelrred before the Family Court being Petition No.53/2012. In these circLlmstances, the appropriate forum would he the Family Court. it is, therefore, contended that the learned Single Judge fell into error in proceeding to direct that the matter would he heard finally on 2.8.2013. Counsel also faults the impugned order in not noticing that without framing the issues the suit cannot be disposed oft hi addition. coUnsel relies upon the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1 984. Ihis Court is of the opinion that since 110 flnal order or order affecting the appellant has been made by the learned Single Judge, at this stage, it would he appropriate br the appellant to move tile Court seized of the suit raising tile contentions urged ill the present appeal. If such an application is made. learned Single Judge should consider the same before proceeding with the suit finally. . ftc appeal is disposed off in the above terms, along with all the applications. Order dash. S. RAVI.NDRA BULAT, J "7MIZ1IU, J JULY 19, 2013 /vksl .