Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

Ordinary Residence of Minor, Not Guardian, Determines Jurisdiction Under Guardians and Wards Act: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

07 October 2024 8:32 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed an appeal filed by Sabahat Sanna in Sabahat Sanna v. Dr. Shabir Ahmed (MA No.29/2024). The Court upheld the Family Court's ruling that the "ordinary residence" of a minor, not the guardian, determines the court's jurisdiction in custody matters under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The Court found that since the children were ordinarily residing in District Poonch, the Family Court in Jammu had no jurisdiction.

The appellant, Sabahat Sanna, had sought custody of her two minor daughters, aged 5 and 4, under Sections 12 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The Family Court dismissed her application, holding that it lacked jurisdiction as the minors were residing in District Poonch, not Jammu, where the petition was filed. This order was challenged by Sanna, who argued that under Muslim law, she was entitled to the custody of her daughters until they reached puberty, and thus, the minors should be deemed to reside with her in Jammu.

The central legal issue was whether the "ordinary residence" of the minors should be considered in light of Muslim personal law, which grants custody of daughters to the mother until puberty. The appellant argued that this custody right under personal law should influence the determination of where the minors "ordinarily reside."

The respondent opposed this view, asserting that the Family Court’s decision, based on Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, was correct as the minors were living in Poonch and had never resided in Jammu.

The Court thoroughly examined Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, which stipulates that applications for guardianship must be made to the District Court where the minor "ordinarily resides." The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that her deemed custody under Muslim law should dictate the place of ordinary residence. It cited the Supreme Court's interpretation in Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo (2011), emphasizing that "ordinary residence" refers to the minor's physical location and intention to reside in a place, not the legal custody rights of the guardian.

"Ordinary residence of a minor is different from the residence of the natural guardian who may be in deemed custody of the minor under personal law."

Since it was undisputed that the minors had been living in Poonch, the Family Court in Jammu had no jurisdiction, and the appellant's case was rightly dismissed.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed the appeal, upholding the principle that the ordinary residence of the minor is the determining factor in jurisdictional questions under the Guardians and Wards Act. This ruling reinforces that custody rights under personal law do not override statutory provisions regarding the jurisdiction of family courts.

 

Date of Decision: 24th September 2024

Sabahat Sanna v. Dr. Shabir Ahmed

Similar News