Jurisdiction in guardianship proceedings is determined by the ordinary residence of the minor, with the court ruling that factual disputes must be resolved through evidence rather than dismissal purely based on jurisdictional claims.

O R D E R

The revision has been filed by the husband/father, seeking to quash the Guardian OP proceedings in GWOP.No.19 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court in Nagapattinam.

2. Despite sufficient opportunities granted to the revision petitioner, there has been no appearance on the side of the revision petitioner. I proceeded to hear Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.L.G.Sahadevan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Even though the revision could have been dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution, considering that the welfare of a minor child is involved, I have proceeded to advert my attention to the grounds of challenge in the CRP.

4. It is the case of the revision petitioner that the guardian OP filed before the Family Court, Nagapattinam is without jurisdiction under Section 9(1) of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 , in view of the ordinary residence of the minor being at Singapore. The factual matrix viz., the marriage between the parties, the birth of the child at Singapore on 03.12.2021 and the respondent coming to India on 05.05.2022 are not in dispute.

5. It is the specific allegation of the petitioner that the visa permits the respondent to continuously stay only for a period of 90 days in India during each visit, though the visa is valid until 18.04.2027. Highlighting the said fact, the petitioner contends that the respondent has illegally overstayed in India with the minor child and the Guardian OP filed before the Family Court, Nagapattinam is without jurisdiction. It is further contended that, the child being a citizen of Singapore is entitled to several benefits including superior health care and education there and according to the petitioner, the welfare of the minor, if considered, then the Guardian OP will have to be dismissed.

6. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.G.Rajagopalan, appearing for the respondent would submit that the residence of the minor is sufficient to confer jurisdiction and even according to the petitioner, the respondent resides only in Nagapattinam, which is the address that is given as the registered address of the respondent in the Civil Revision Petition and when admittedly, the minor resides with the respondent/mother, there is absolutely no infirmity in the mother filing a Guardian OP before the Family Court at Nagapattinam. The learned Senior Counsel would further state that merely because the minor happens to be a Singapore citizen by birth, it cannot imply that the Guardian OP filed here, that is before the Family Court, Nagapattinam is without jurisdiction.

7. The learned Senior Counsel also places reliance on the following decisions:

1. Ruchi Majoo Vs. Sanjeev Majoo , reported in (2011) 6 SCC 479 ; 2. Mst.Firoza Begum vs Akhtaruddin Laska , reported in AIR 1963 Assam 193;and

3. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Cr.No.3925 of 2024 (O&M) dated 07.01.2025.

8. In Ruchi Majoo’s case (referred herein supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreting the phrase “where the minor ordinarily resides” held that it implies something more than a flying visit or a casual stay at a particular place.

9. In Firoza Begum's case, (referred herein supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Assam High Court held that a minor residing with the mother for 3 years before the Application for appointment of guardian is filed, would confer jurisdiction on the Court where the mother resides along with the minor children.

10. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in CR.No.3925 of 2024 has held that jurisdiction of the Court to decide the cu