$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 22^nd January, 2026 Pronounced on: 12^th March, 2026 + CM(M) 2267/2024, CM APPL. 19991/2024 SH VIPIN KAUL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vipin Raina, Advocate versus SMT KANTA DESHWAL .....Respondent Through: Ms. Rachna Maheshwari and Mr.

Mannu Bansal, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

JUDGMENT

AMIT SHARMA, J.

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeks the following prayers: -

“a) Stay the operation of the impugned order dated 19.01.2024 and order dated 28.02.2024 till the final disposal of the present petition, in the interest of justice;

b) Set aside the impugned order under suit no. GP 42/2023 for lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Ld. Family Court, District Saket/South, in the interest of justice.

c) Pass any other or further orders which this Hon'ble court deems fit, expedient and/or appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case.

d) Award the costs in favour of the Petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

2. The present petition has been filed assailing the impugned orders dated 19.01.2024 and 28.02.2024. Vide impugned order dated 19.01.2024, the application under Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short, ‘Act’), filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed and he was directed to file reply/written statement to the Guardianship petition, GP No. 42/2023, filed by the respondent under Section 25 of the Act for grant of custody of Baby ‘K’, who is the granddaughter of the respondent.

3. The respondent is mother-in-law of the petitioner and maternal grandmother (naani) of the child-‘K’. The mother of the minor child-‘K’ is stated to have passed away on 09.05.2021 due to corona virus. The subject petition was filed by the respondent seeking custody of her granddaughter wherein jurisdictional issue was raised by the petitioner and the same was dismissed by the learned Family Court on 19.01.2024. Vide impugned order dated 28.02.2024, the petitioner was granted last and final opportunity to file reply/written statement to the application under Section 12 of the Act subject to costs of Rs.5,000/-, to be paid to the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide the impugned order dated 19.01.2024, the learned Family Court has erred in dismissing the application under Section 9(1) of the Act inasmuch as the petitioner is biological father of the minor child has been taking care and looking after his child baby ‘K’ since June 2022 at his residential address G-19/2, 1^st Floor, DLF City-I, Sector-26, Chakarpur, Gurugram, Haryana. It is further submitted that learned Family Court has wrongly concluded that the minor child was born in Malviya Nagar, Delhi; however, as per birth certificate of the child issued by SDMC, the place of birth has been mentioned as Apolo Cradle, Nehru Enclave, Kalkaji, New Delhi. It is submitted that as per aadhar card of the minor child, the address has been mentioned as Neb Sarai. Therefore, the observation of the learned Family Court that the child was born in Malviya Nagar is incorrect in view of the birth certificate of the child. It is further submitted that minor child was in care and custody of the petitioner and is ordinarily residing in Gurugram, Haryana, and, therefore, the learned Family Court in Delhi has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. It is the case of the petitioner that he alongwith his wife, minor child and his father initially used to reside at Neb Sarai, Delhi; however, in June 2022, they shifted to their newly purchased house situated at the aforesaid address in Gurugram, Haryana. It is submitted that there is no documentary evidence on record to show that minor child used to reside in Malviya Nagar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record photographs of the latter alongwith his minor child and father.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order dated 19.01.2