SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 302

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
Tanmoy Banerjee – Appellant
Versus
Shirine Banerjee – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Supratik Basu
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Rajdeep Bhattachar

JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. The petitioner has assailed the order no. 15 dated 12.10. 2023 passed in Misc. Case No.29 of 2022.

2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner preferred an application under section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, before learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court III, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas.

3. Opposite party/wife submitted that the opposite party/mother and the ward are resident at present at Bhubenewar and they are residing therein since first weeks of January, 2022 and the ward is presently studying in class VII of St. Xavier’s International High School at Patia Bhubeneswar.

4. Learned court below by the impugned order observed that mere factual residence at a place at the time of proceeding is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction of the expression “ordinarily resides” appearing in section 9(2). The jurisdiction would be under the District Judge where the minor ordinarily resides. Accordingly, he holds that since he never stayed with her mother at her parental house at Salkia, Howrah and that the child along with his mother is residing for a considerable period of time at Bhubeneswar, Orissa so his ordinary

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top