The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Family Court to entertain a child custody application under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act is not determined by the 'ordinary residence' of the minor, and the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act are inapplicable to such cases.

JUDGMENT :

R.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. The appellants have challenged the legality of the order dated 22.8.2019, passed by the Judge, Family Court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District in I.A. No. 1336 of 2019 in GWOP No. 28 of 2019. By the said order, the learned Family Court has rejected the application filed by the appellants under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. seeking dismissal of the plaint filed by the respondent, Smt. Geeta Siva Tejaswi Teegavarapu, wherein the respondent had sought the custody of her minor child, Master Venkata Ashrit under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in 2006, the appellant No. 1, Mr. Venkata Sriramam Konduri went, and settled in the United States of America. The appellant No. 1 and the respondent got married on 8.2.2014 at Ahobila Mutt, Tirumala, Andhra Pradesh in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, on 10.4.2014, both the appellant No. 1 and the respondent moved to United States. The couple resided at 3103, Stone Water, Glen LN Cary, NC 27519. During their stay, and during their wedlock, on 28.5.2018, a son, Venkata Ashrit was born at the Duke Medical Centre, North Carolina. Since the child was born in the United States, he became a United States citizen by naturalization.

3. However, after the birth of the son, for reasons best known to the parties, certain disputes erupted between the appellant No. 1 and the respondent. Apprehending that the respondent may remove the child from his custody, on 15.10.2018, the appellant No. 1 initiated a child custody proceeding before the District Court, County of Wake, North Carolina, U.S.A. By order dated 15.10.2018, the learned District Court granted a temporary emergency, and exclusive legal and physical custody of the minor child to the appellant No. 1. The learned District Court further directed that the minor child should not be removed by either party from the County of Wake pending hearing. As the differences continued to mount between the appellant No. 1 and the respondent, on 21.10.2018, the respondent left United States alongwith her mother while leaving the minor child in the appellants' care.

4. According to the appellants, since the minor child had to undergo the tonsure ceremony, on 19.3.2019, the child was sent to India alongwith his parental grandmother, Mrs. Konduri Naga Maheshwari, the appellant No. 3 before this Court.

5. Coming to know that the child has been brought to India by the appellant No. 3, the respondent filed a petition under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, before the learned Family Court for seeking the custody of the minor child, Venkat Ashrit, and for restraining the appellants from removing the child from the jurisdiction of the Family Court in Hyderabad. On 4.5.2019, the learned Family Court passed an ad interim injunction order in favour of the respondent thereby restraining the appellants from removing the child from the jurisdiction of the Family Court, R.R. District. Moreover, by order dated 16.5.2019, the learned Family Court directed the appellants to surrender the passport of the minor child within a period of two weeks.

6. Since the appellants were aggrieved by the initiation of the custody proceeding before the learned Family Court, the appellants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. wherein they challenged the very jurisdiction of the learned Family Court to try to suit. The appellants contended that since the minor child was not the “ordinary resident” of Hyderabad, was a permanent resident of County of Wake, North Carolina the learned Family Court did not have the jurisdiction to try the suit. However, by the order dated 22.8.2019, the learned Family Court dismissed the said application. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

7. Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, the learned Counsel for the appellants, has raised the following contentions before this Court:

Firstly, Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC clearly stat