IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Anit Kumar @ Anit Singh - Appellant
Versus
Pooja - Respondent
CM(M) 385 of 2022 & CM Appl. 20173 of 2022
Decided On : 03-11-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing jurisdiction challenge presented. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments regarding territorial jurisdiction. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's observations on jurisdiction and interim custody. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. conclusion and order issued. (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)--Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.04.2022.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly the child is ordinarily a resident of Muzzafar Nagar and therefore in view of Section 9(1) of the Guardian & Wards Act, 1890, the Court of Muzzafar Nagar shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the same and has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case titled Ruchi Majoo vs. Sanjeev Majoo, (2011) 6 SCC 479.
4. The Relevant para of the impugned order dated 07.04.2022 reads as under:
"If this court does not have territorial jurisdiction, the petition cannot be rejected under Order Vll Rule 11 CPC. lf this court does not have territorial jurisdiction, the petition will have to be returned for filing before the court having territorial jurisdiction. The child is about 3 years old now. In view of Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the custody of the child has to be ordinarily with the mother. The question whether the petitioner voluntarily abandoned the custody of the child is a matter of trial. The question of territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of law in fact and the same cannot be decided at this stage. The judgments cited at bar by Ld. Counsel for respondent have different facts. Accordingly the application of the respondent is dismissed and is directed to file to the petition and the application under Section 12 of the G.W. Act."
5. Perusal of the para makes it clear that the learned Judge, Family Court has not returned any finding as to the territorial jurisdiction. The learned Judge, Family Court is directed to frame a preliminary issue on the point of territorial jurisdiction and return a finding on the question of the territorial jurisdiction after conducting necessary enquiry. The enquiry may include taking of evidence on this point.
6. However, this will not in any manner deprive the learned Family Judge to pass any order regarding the interim custody in accordance with law till the decision of the preliminary issue, in the welfare of the child, as a temporary arrangement.
7. With these observations, the present petition along with the pending application stands disposed of.
8. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Judge, Family Court on 01st December, 2022.
Custody petitions require proper jurisdiction assessment, with courts allowed to make interim orders that serve the child's welfare regardless of jurisdictional questions.
The assessment of jurisdiction for custody of minors requires establishing their ordinary residence, determined by consistent living situations rather than temporary stays.
Jurisdiction for guardianship applications is determined by the minor's ordinary residence, requiring careful evidence assessment.
The 'ordinary residence' of children determines jurisdiction in custody matters under the Act of 1890.
Jurisdiction for custody petitions lies where the child ordinarily resides, not merely where parents are located; interpretation of relevant statutes must prioritize the child's actual living circums....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.