Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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

Latest Legal News