Bikramjit Singh vs Renuka Devi - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 3291

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 3291

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LISA GILL, RITU TAGORE, JJ.
Bikramjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
Renuka Devi – Respondent
FAO NO. 5583 of 2022
Decided On : 02-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate; For the Appellant

Headnote:(A) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Section 25 - Appeal against dismissal of custody petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction - Appellant claims custody of minor daughter residing with respondent - Guardian Judge found Gurdaspur Court lacked jurisdiction as minor's ordinary residence is in Kangra - Court emphasizes jurisdiction based on ordinary residence as per Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. (Paras 7, 12, 18)

Facts of the case:
Appellant sought custody of his minor daughter from respondent, alleging lack of proper care and retrieval from custody - Respondent left matrimonial home with minor child in 2017, residing in Kangra.

Findings of Court:
Court upheld Guardian Judge's finding that there was no jurisdiction for Gurdaspur Court to entertain the petition as the child resided in Kangra, thus reinforcing the need for applications to be filed in the minor’s ordinary residence jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether the court at Gurdaspur had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the custody petition concerning the minor’s ordinary residence in Kangra, and the procedural correctness of filing through a legal guardian.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that jurisdiction is determined by the ordinary residence of the minor, rejecting allegations against the respondent's care and emphasizing the need for the appellant to seek legal remedy in the appropriate court. (Paras 16, 19)

Result: Appeal dismissed with no order as to cost.

Table of Content
1. background and facts of custody petition (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. appellant argues jurisdiction and procedural issues (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. court analyzes jurisdiction based on ordinary residence (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. court's affirmation of previous findings (Para 19 , 20)
5. appeal dismissed with no costs (Para 21)

JUDGMENT

Ritu Tagore, J.

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of Principal Judge, Family Court Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Guardian Judge'), dated 10.10.2022, who dismissed the petition filed by the appellant-father Bikramjit Singh, through his real sister Poonam wife of Parshotam Kumar, under section 25 of the Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant Bikramjit Singh, filed a petition for custody of his minor daughter 'Mkaur' (her name has been screened) through his real sister Poonam wife of Parshotam Kumar while pleading insanity. Parties to the petition, it is stated, were married on 08.05.2012 at Gurudwara Baba Tehal Singh, Tibri road, Gurdaspur as per Sikh rites and rituals in a simple function of marriage. The couple was blessed with two daughters namely 'Skaur' bom on 18.02.2014 and 'Mkaur' bom on 19.07.2016. It is stated that minor daughter, 'Mkaur' is residing with the respondent at Kangra.

3. As per allegations of the appellant, behaviour of the respondent became very harsh, intolerable and cruel towards him after the birth of their second child; the respondent started levelling false allegations against his character and even expressed her dislike for him by alleging him to be an unsuitable match for her and was forced to marry him by her parents. The appellant also alleged undue interference of parents of the respondent in their matrimonial affairs. It is alleged that eventually, the respondent withdrew from his company without any reasonable and sufficient cause and of her own will and refused to join his company, despite several efforts made by him to bring the respondent back along with the minor child. The appellant claimed that respondent left the matrimonial home in October 2017 in his absence and took the minor child 'Mkaur' along with her by leaving the elder daughter in the matrimonial home.

4. According to the appellant, he is ready and willing to live with the respondent and his daughters and wants to maintain his family but mother of the respondent misguides her and wants to extract money from him for sending respondent and the child to matrimonial home.

5. Further, as per the appellant, the minor daughter 'Mkaur' is residing with the respondent and he (appellant) was not allowed to meet his daughter, whenever he tried to visit and meet her. It is alleged that respondent is not properly bringing up the minor daughter. She is not giving any education or other basic necessities of life to the child. The respondent is not concerned about the welfare and future of the minor daughter and is forcing the minor daughter to beg for alms. On the above material assertions and allegations, appellant seeks custody of the minor daughter to be handed over to him for her better future as he has sufficient wherewithal for providing good education and all necessities of life to the child. He requested the respondent to deliver custody of the minor daughter to him but she refused, which necessitated filing of the petition for custody.

6. Upon notice, the respondent did not appear and was proceeded ex parte before the Guardian Judge.

7. In ex parte evidence, the petitioner examined four witnesses and also tendered documentary evidence. However, the Guardian Judge dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction by observing that minor daughter 'Mkaur'is residing with her mother in district Kangra, therefore, the Court at Gurdaspur has no territorial jurisdiction to try the matter. It was also observed th