' The petitioner was married to respondent No,3. Out of this wedlock a son Muhammad Zohaib was born on 16-12-1999. On 7-5-2002 respondent No,3 filed an application for the custody of said child.
According to her the child had been removed by the petitioner illegally from her custody. In response the petitioner stated that respondent had been continuously leaving his house and thereby leaving child. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned trial Court allowed the application on 27-2-2003. A first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge Talagang, on 18-9-2003.
2. Learned counsel contends that the learned Judge Family Court who conducted the trial had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter and as such impugned orders are void.
3. I have examined the copies of the records. I find that according to the plaint the address of the petitioner is stated to be in Tehsil Talagang where the case was tried. I do not find any objection in the written statement filed in the Court of learned Judge at Talagang, that he has no jurisdiction or for that matter the address of the petitioner is incorrectly given. On the other hand, I find that the written statement is signed and verified by him on oath and his entire particulars including his address at Talagang are given in the written statement itself. He appeared in the witness-box as R.W.1 on 26-10-200Q and gave his address as Tehsil Talagang.
4. I, therefore, find that this objection was never raised before the learned trial Court. Needless to state that an objection as to place of suing is to be taken at the earliest and certainly before the framing of issues. This general rule contained in C.P.C. Should also apply to Family Court being primarily a rule of equity. No othei point has been urged. The writ in limine.