Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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