Jurisdiction under the Guardians and Wards Act is determined by the minor’s ordinary residence, requiring factual examination, and cannot be resolved solely on procedural grounds.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reply to the counter affidavit and I.A. filed by the sole opposite party is ready, however, the same has not been submitted in the Registry as the matter was on board.

2. In view of his such submission, the said reply has been taken on record.

3. Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shubham Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party.

4. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying therein to quash the order dated 01.06.2024 passed in Original Suit No.274 of 2023 by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-I, Ranchi, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC regarding jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit has been rejected by the learned Court.

5. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the sole opposite party are legally wedded husband and wife whose marriage was solemnized on 06.06.2010 at Lucknow and out of the said wedlock, a male child was born on 19.07.2012. He further submits that after the marriage, both the parties with their minor child had been residing at Delhi where the minor was receiving education in one of the school. He then submits that the opposite party has voluntarily left the husband’s place at Delhi in first week of July, 2020 leaving minor son aged 7 years at Delhi in the custody of the petitioner-husband with an intention not to return to her matrimonial home ever because she has left the matrimonial home with all belongings, jewelries and testimonials. He also submits that during the COVID times, while the petitioner was suffering from COVID, the opposite party on 11.04.2021 forcibly took the child to Ranchi from Lucknow. He submits that the opposite party could not keep the minor child along with her in Ranchi and the child in a short stay of two months was assaulted and ill treated many times which the minor informed to the petitioner and minor insisted the petitioner to take him back to Lucknow. The petitioner then reached Ranchi on 20.06.2021 and the opposite party and his brother arranged e-pass for travel during Corona left Ranchi along with the child on 21.06.2021 and reached Lucknow the same day along with the minor son and since then the son is residing at Lucknow. He further submits that the sole opposite party who had left the matrimonial home as per her choice, moved a petition in the month of March, 2023 under Section 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act, 1890”) and the said petition has been numbered as Original Suit No.274 of 2023. He submits that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court-I, Ranchi in terms of the order dated 25.03.2023 posted the suit for hearing and admission for 27.03.2023 and the said suit was admitted vide order dated 10.04.2023, contained in Annexure-2. He also submits that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC read with Section 9 of the Act, 1890 was filed by the petitioner before the learned Court, which was decided by the impugned order. By way of referring Section 9 of the Act, 1890,