Amar Nath Mishra vs Mahesh Dubey — 8/2023

Case under Guardian Wards Act Section 7 (i) b, 10. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 05th May 2026.

GUARDIANSHIP

CNR: BRBU100100682023

EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

05th May 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

849/2023

Filing Date

18-12-2023

Registration No

8/2023

Registration Date

18-12-2023

Court

DJ Div. Buxar

Judge

2-Principal Judge, Family Court

Acts & Sections

Guardian Wards Act Section 7 (i) b, 10

Petitioner(s)

Amar Nath Mishra

Adv. Laxman Jee Rai

Respondent(s)

Mahesh Dubey

Sonawati Devi

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Principal Judge, Family Court

22-04-2026

EVIDENCE

13-04-2026

EVIDENCE

19-03-2026

EVIDENCE

13-03-2026

EVIDENCE

10-03-2026

EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

12-02-2026
Copy of order

Summary: The court rejected the respondent's preliminary objection to jurisdiction filed under CPC Rule 11, Order 7, finding that the court has territorial jurisdiction over the guardianship case. The petitioner (father Amarnath Mishra) filed the guardianship petition for four minor children in 2023; while three children were born in Dhanbad and one in Baksar district, all are being maintained in Dhanbad where the respondent resides. The court held that since evidence has already commenced and the case is substantively proceeding, the jurisdiction question should be decided on merits rather than through a preliminary objection, and ordered the case to continue with cross-examination of witness scheduled for March 10, 2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court rejected the respondent's preliminary objection to jurisdiction filed under CPC Rule 11, Order 7, finding that the court has territorial jurisdiction over the guardianship case. The petitioner (father Amarnath Mishra) filed the guardianship petition for four minor children in 2023; while three children were born in Dhanbad and one in Baksar district, all are being maintained in Dhanbad where the respondent resides. The court held that since evidence has already commenced and the case is substantively proceeding, the jurisdiction question should be decided on merits rather than through a preliminary objection, and ordered the case to continue with cross-examination of witness scheduled for March 10, 2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

DJ Div. Buxar All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case