The paramount consideration of the child's welfare, the interpretation of territorial jurisdiction, and the priority given to the mother's residence for a child below the age of 5 years were the central legal principles established in the judgment.

1. The sole question which requires determination in the present case is whether the Civil Court at Hoshiarpur has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the petition filed by the petitioner who is a widow, under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short 1890 Act) read with Section 6 of the Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (for short 1956 Act). Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Hoshiarpur has sustained a preliminary objection raised by the respondents who are the grand parents of the minor child and it has been held by placing reliance on Section 9 of the 1890 Act that since the child is residing at Ambala and the petitioner, who is the natural mother is residing at Hoshiarpur, the Courts at Ambala alone would have the jurisdiction.

2. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of the controversy raised in this petition are that the petitioner Smt. Sarbjit got married to the son of respondents Shri Mukesh Kumar on 17-10-1999 according to Hindu rites at Hoshiarpur. Both of them lived together at Ambala where the respondents who are grand parents of the minor child have been residing. One male child Gautam was born out of the wedlock on 11-9-2000 at Hoshiarpur. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of birth certificate showing that the minor child was born at Hoshiarpur (P-2). There are allegations of demands of dowry by the respondents and its tolerance of unfair behaviour by the petitioner. It is asserted that Mukesh Kumar, husband of the petitioner died on 2-10-2001 under some mysterious circumstances. After his death, the petitioner has been allegedly turned out of the matrimonial home on 1-2-2002. It is alleged that she was denied even the custody of the minor child Gautam who had been forcibly and illegally snatched by the respondents. Despite intervention of respectables to keep the petitioner in the matrimonial home or give her back the minor son Gautam but all in vain. When nothing materialised them, a petition under Sections 7 and 25 of the 1890 Act read with Section 6 of the 1956 Act for taking custody of the minor Gautam was filed by the wife-petitioner in the Court of Guardian Judge at Hoshiarpur in March 2002. The petitioner had also initiated proceedings earlier under Sections 406/498-A IPC which are pending in the Court at Hoshiarpur. The Guardian Judge, on the basis of objection raised in the reply filed by the respondents, has recorded a conclusion that such a petition could be filed within the jurisdiction of District Courts where the minor ordinarily resides as has been provided by Section 9 of the 1890 Act. The operative portion of the impugned order is extracted below for the facility of reference :-

-

4. It is admitted case of the parties that the minor child was born at Ambala and after the death of Mukesh Kumar, husband of the petitioner, the petitioner started residing at Hoshiarpur whereas the child is residing with his grand parents at Ambala. The allegations of the petitioner is that the child was forcibly kept by the respondent at Ambala and she was shunted out from her matrimonial home. But these allegations have been denied by the respondent at the time of arguing the case of jurisdiction point. Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act provides that if the application is with respect to the guardianship of the person of the minor, it shall be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides.

7. In the present case, it is admitted case of the parties that the minor child is residing at Ambala since his birth and his mother is residing at Hoshiarpur and as per the law laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in 1999(3) RCR (C) 219 the Court at Hoshiarpur has no jurisdiction. Therefore, the present petition is ordered to be returned to the petitioner for presentation of the same in the competent Court.

3. During the pendency of the instant petition, an application C. M. No. 3233-CII of 2005 has also been file