Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, VIKAS SURI
Rahul Lamba – Appellant
Versus
Tanya Prashar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
The instant appeal is directed against the impugned order rendered on 30.01.2025 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurdaspur, wherebys became dismissed an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, thus seeking the rejection of the petition in view of Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, (hereinafter in short to be referred as 'the Act of 1890'), wherebys became espoused, thus the restoration of the custody of the minor child to the petitioner from the respondent.2. Before proceeding to determine the justifiability of the passing of the impugned order, it is relevant to extract, the provisions as embodied in Section 9 of the Act of 1890. The said provision becomes extracted hereinafter:-
(1) 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.
(2) If the application is with respect to the guardianship of the property of the minor, it may be made either to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides or to a District Court having jurisdiction in a place
The custody applications are governed by the principle of 'ordinary residence'; mothers are deemed natural guardians of their minor children under five, irrespective of actual custody.
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....
The jurisdiction for custody applications under the Guardian and Wards Act depends on the child's actual residence, distinct from natural guardianship provisions.
Jurisdiction in custody matters is determined by the ordinary residence of minors, which must be established based on current living arrangements rather than historical context.
The 'ordinary residence' of children determines jurisdiction in custody matters under the Act of 1890.
Territorial jurisdiction of Court – Minor may be in deemed custody of mother but for the purpose of determining jurisdiction, it is ordinary residence of minor that would be relevant.
Jurisdiction for custody of a minor must be determined by the child's ordinary residence, as per Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
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.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
