Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2009

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Jain, J
Ramgopal Raikwar – Appellant
Versus
Deepti Raikwar – Respondent
MISC. PETITION No. 521 of 2026

Advocates:
Pradeep Kumar Naveria[P-1],

The ordinary residence of a minor under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is determined by the intention of the natural guardian, and temporary removal by a non-guardian does not change the minor's ordinary residence.

Headnote:(A) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Sections 9, 10, 25 - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Section 4(b) - Territorial jurisdiction - Application for custody of minor - Expression 'where the minor ordinarily resides' under Section 9(1) of the Act is a question of intention to make that place his abode, which is a question of fact or mixed question of law and fact - The natural guardian's intention determines the minor's ordinary residence - A person taking custody who does not qualify as guardian under Section 4(b) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 cannot change the minor's ordinary residence. (Paras 7, 9, 11)

Facts of the case:
The respondent/mother filed an application for custody of her son aged about 12 years before the Court at Seoni Malwa. The petitioners, grandparents of the child, challenged the territorial jurisdiction contending that the child ordinarily resided at Bhopal (during his father's lifetime) and later at Nasrullaganj, District Sehore. The father expired in 2023. The mother got compassionate employment in Bhopal but left the matrimonial home due to interference from in-laws and moved to her maternal home at Seoni Malwa with her children, where she intended to reside. The grandparents took the son away from Seoni Malwa, first to Bhopal and then to Nasrullaganj.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the place of residence as per the intention of the natural guardian (the mother) is Seoni Malwa. The person who took the child away (grandparents) is not a guardian under Section 4(b) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. Hence, the child cannot be deemed to be ordinarily resident of places where he was taken by a non-guardian. The trial court's order rejecting the objection on territorial jurisdiction was upheld.

Issues: Whether the expression 'where the minor ordinarily resides' under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 can be determined based on the intention of the natural guardian, and whether temporary removal of the child by a non-guardian can alter the minor's ordinary residence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the ordinary residence of a minor is determined by the intention of the natural guardian, and a person who is not a guardian under Section 4(b) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 cannot change the minor's ordinary residence by taking custody of the child.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. facts leading to the petition for custody of minor child by mother. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

ORDER

By way of present petition challenge is made to the order dated 12-12-

2025, passed by the trial Court, thereby rejecting the objection of the

petitioners (Grandparents of the child) as to territorial jurisdiction of the

Court to entertain application under Section 10 and 25 of Guardians and

Wards Act,1890.

2. The necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of present petition

are that an application seeking custody of son aged about 12 years has been

sought by the respondent No.1 who is mother of the said child and the child

is presently in custody of his grandparents who have come up to this Court

in the present petition. The father of the child has expired in the year 2023 as

he was suffering from cancer leaving behind two children, one son aged

around 12 years and one daughter aged around 7 years, out of which the son

is now in custody of the grandparents while the daughter is in custody of the

respondent No.1 i.e. her mother.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR

SARATHE

Signing time: 02-02-2026

18:43:22

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8893

2 MP-521-2026

3. The application seeking custody of the son was filed by

respondent No.1 on the grounds that upon death of her husband on

13.09.2023 she got compassionate employment in State Bank of India,

Branch Misrod and at the time of death of her husband, the children were

studying in Sagar Public School, Bhopal, but after death of her husband, it

became difficult for the respondent No.1 to keep the children at Bhopal

looking to the interference in the family affairs by her sister-in-law and other

relatives of her husband and therefore she left the matrimonial house along

with the children and went to her maternal home at Seoni Malwa, District

Narmadapuram. It was alleged that the daughter is still studying at Seoni

Malwa but on 25.02.2025, the present petitioners who are grandparents of

the child took away the child to Bhopal and on these assertions, the

application seeking custody of the child has been filed before the Court at

Seoni Malwa.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the

necessary fact conferring jurisdiction to the Court as per Section 9 of

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is the place where the minor ordinarily

resides. It is vehemently contended that the child ordinarily resides at Bhopal

because during lifetime of his father he was residing at Bhopal and the

respondent No.1 who is mother is also working in a bank at Misrod which is

near to Bhopal city. It is argued that the grandparents, i.e. the petitioners

have now taken the child to Nasrullaganj, District Sehore and the child is

ordinarily residing at Nasrullaganj, District Sehore and therefore by any

means the application is not maintainable at Seoni Malwa, District

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR

SARATHE

Signing time: 02-02-2026

18:43:22

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8893

3 MP-521-2026

Narmadapuram.

5. Heard.

6 . The jurisdiction of the Court at Seoni Malwa, District

Narmadapuram is being challenged on the ground that the child was residing

at Bhopal and now is residing at Nasrullaganj, District Sehore and therefore,

the application at Seoni Malwa, District Narmadapuram is not maintainable.

It is not in dispute that Sehore, Bhopal and Narmadapuram are all nearby and

adjoining Districts and the distance between Nasrullaganj where the child is

now residing and Seoni Malwa where the case is going on is hardly 50 kms.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ruchi Majoo v.

Sanjeev Majoo, (2011) 6 SCC 479 had held that the expression 'where the

minor ordinarily resides' is primarily a question of intention to make that

place his abode of residence, which in turn is a question of fact or can be a

mixed question of law and fact. It has been held that the intention may be to

make the place his abode of residence permanently or temporarily. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"24. It is evident from a bare read

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2009

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHVivek Jain, JRamgopal Raikwar – AppellantVersusDeepti Raikwar – RespondentMISC. PETITION No. 521 of 2026

The ordinary residence of a minor under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is determined by the intention of the natural guardian, and temporary removal by a non-guardian does not change the minor's ordinary residence.

Cases Referred (5)

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Jain, J
Ramgopal Raikwar – Appellant
Versus
Deepti Raikwar – Respondent
MISC. PETITION No. 521 of 2026