1. Mother appealed against Family Court order returning custody petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction after father removed child from Bangalore. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Kar) 377
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
D K Singh, H.Shanthi Bhushan, JJ.
Smt. Priyanka V - Appellant
Versus
Sri. Prashanth D Veerapur - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 1492 of 2026(FC)
Decided On : 20-08-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. Naresh Kumar Jain., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. Shivananda Reddy R V., Advocate
For the Appellant :Sri. Naresh Kumar Jain., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. Shivananda Reddy R V., Advocate
Territorial jurisdiction for child custody is determined by 'ordinary residence,' not the child's current physical location. A parent cannot unilaterally shift jurisdiction by removing a child from their settled home. For children under five, statutory preference is given to maternal custody under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.
Headnote:(A) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Section 9 - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Section 6(a) - Family Courts Act, 1984 - Custody of minor child - Territorial jurisdiction - Meaning of “ordinarily resides” - The expression “ordinarily resides” does not equate to the place where the minor happens to be found or is temporarily kept on the date the petition is presented - Ordinary residence connotes a regular and settled home and is more than a temporary or transitory residence - Mere fact that a parent takes the child to another place cannot, by itself, be determinative of the question of ordinary residence - Jurisdiction cannot be defeated if a parent unilaterally removes a minor from the place of ordinary residence, as this would enable a parent to choose the forum for adjudication to the prejudice of the other parent (Paras 13, 15, 24, 25, 27, 28).
(B) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Section 6(a) - Custody of child below five years - Statutory recognition is given to the principle that a child of tender years would ordinarily be better cared for in the custody of the mother - Custody of an infant or tender-aged child should ordinarily be with the mother unless the father establishes that the welfare and interest of the child would be prejudiced (Paras 18, 19, 20).
(C) Family Court - Object of constituting Family Courts is to secure a speedy and effective resolution of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs - Where matrimonial proceedings are already pending, connected custody disputes ought to be considered by the same Court to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting orders (Paras 16, 17).
Facts of the case:
A mother filed a petition seeking custody of her minor son. The child had been residing with the mother in one city, but the father took the child to another district under the representation that the child would be returned within fifteen days, but subsequently refused to do so. The mother filed the custody petition in the city where the child had previously resided. The Family Court returned the petition, directing it to be presented before the court having jurisdiction over the place where the child was presently residing with the father.
Findings of Court:
The Family Court's approach was too narrow in returning the petition solely based on the child's current physical location. The court failed to examine where the child ordinarily resided and the circumstances of the removal. Given the child was under five years of age and had been residing with the mother, the statutory preference for maternal custody and the need to avoid multiplicity of proceedings (as matrimonial suits were already pending in the same court) weighed in favor of the mother's chosen forum.
Issues: Whether the Family Court was justified in returning the petition filed by the mother on the ground that the child was residing with the father in another district, without considering that the child was ordinarily residing with the mother in the city where the petition was filed.
Ratio Decidendi: Jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act is determined by ordinary residence, which is the place the minor would have continued to reside but for unilateral removal by a parent. A party cannot create a different forum merely by moving the child. For children under five, Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act establishes a statutory preference for maternal custody unless the mother is proven unsuitable.
Result: Appeal allowed. The impugned order returning the petition is set aside and the petition is restored to the file of the Family Court.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- family law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Mother argued child ordinarily resided with her at Bangalore; father contended jurisdiction lies where child resides. (Para 10 , 11 )
3. Court held ordinary residence determined by pre-removal settled home; unilateral removal does not change jurisdiction. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
4. Ordinary residence of a minor is determined by pre-removal settled home; unilateral removal by a parent does not change jurisdiction. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 )
5. Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; petition restored to Family Court Bangalore for consideration including interim custody. (Para 31 )
6. What is the proper interpretation of 'ordinarily resides' under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
Ordinary residence means a regular and settled home; it is not the place where the minor happens to be temporarily kept. (Para 13 , 14 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
7. Can a parent unilaterally remove a child to another location and then claim that court lacks jurisdiction?
No, unilateral removal does not change the ordinary residence; jurisdiction is determined by where the child ordinarily resided before removal. (Para 15 , 16 , 27 , 28 , 30 )
8. What is the relevance of pendency of matrimonial proceedings in determining jurisdiction for custody petitions?
Pendency of matrimonial proceedings in the same court is a relevant circumstance to avoid multiplicity, but not conclusive on territorial jurisdiction. (Para 16 , 17 , 30 )
9. How does Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act apply to custody of a child under five years?
It provides that custody of a child under five years shall ordinarily be with the mother; father must prove mother's unsuitability. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
JUDGMENT :
H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, J.
The guardianship and custody of a child of 4 years 10 months old is the subject-matter of the anxious concern of this Court in this appeal. The deepest consideration for the welfare of the child is paramount in our minds when we dispose of this appeal.
2. The petitioner-mother of a tender-aged child has preferred this appeal, being aggrieved by the order the order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the Court of III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru (‘the Family Court’ for short), in G & WC No.18/2025, whereby the Family Court has returned the petition with a direction to present the same before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction over the place where the minor child is presently residing with the father.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they were arrayed before the Family Court.
4. Brief facts of the case are, the petitioner-mother approached the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, by filing G & W.C. No.18 of 2025 under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1980, read with the relevant provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking custody of her minor son. The petition was accompanied by an application under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act seeking interim custody of the minor child, read with Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and that their marriage was solemnised on 06.07.2018. Out of the wedlock, two sons were born. The elder son, Master Advik Raj P. Veerapur, was aged about six years at the time of filing of the petition, while the younger son, Master Anwith Dev P. Veerapur, was born on 11.10.2021 and was aged about three and a half years. According to the petitioner, on account of differences between the parties, she was residing at Bangalore along with the minor children, whereas the respondent was residing at Ilkal Taluk, Bagalkot District.
5.1. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent used to visit Bangalore on the pretext of meeting the children. On 03.09.2023, the respondent came to the petitioner's residence and took the younger child with him, stating that he would take the child to his native place and return him within fifteen days. However, the respondent did not return the child as promised. When the petitioner approached him and requested that the child be returned to her custody, the respondent refused to do so. The petitioner thereafter approached the Child Welfare Committee, Karnataka, and also lodged a complaint before the National Commission for Women and the Women Police Station, Basavanagudi, Bangalore, seeking assistance for securing the custody of her child.
5.2. The petitioner also caused a legal notice dated 09.05.2024 to be issued to the respondent, calling upon him to hand over custody of the minor child. The respondent did not reply to the said notice. In the meantime, the petitioner instituted M.C.No.3149 of 2024 seeking divorce and also filed a maintenance petition in Crl.Misc.No.976 of 2025 against the respondent. Both proceedings were pending before the III Additional Principal Family Court, Bangalore. The petitioner had also approached this Court by filing W.P.(H.C.) No.94 of 2024 seeking custody of the minor child. However, the said proceedings did not result in restoration of custody and the petitioner was directed to work out her remedy before the appropriate Court.
5.3. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner instituted G. & W.C. No.18 of 2025 before the Family Court, Bangalore, seeking custody of her younger son and also filed an application seeking interim custody of the child. On service of notice, the respondent appeared before the Court and disputed its territorial jurisdiction. The respondent filed his objections to the application under Section 12 of t
