Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

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