Case Note & Summary
The petitioner husband and respondent wife married in 1994 and had two daughters, Aditi (born 1998) and Vidushi (born 2003). They separated in 2010, with the husband residing in Coorg and the wife residing in Bangalore with the children. The husband filed a guardianship petition under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 before the Family Court in Bangalore, seeking custody of the minor children. The wife filed an application challenging the jurisdiction of the Family Court, arguing that since the children ordinarily resided with her in Bangalore, the court had jurisdiction. The Family Court, by order dated 18.01.2013, upheld its jurisdiction. The husband challenged this order by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court examined Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, which provides that the court having jurisdiction is where the minor ordinarily resides. The court noted that the minor children were residing with the mother in Bangalore, and therefore the Family Court at Bangalore had jurisdiction. The husband's argument that he was the natural guardian and his residence should determine jurisdiction was rejected. The High Court held that the Family Court's order was correct and dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the Family Court at Bangalore had jurisdiction to entertain the guardianship petition.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Guardianship - Jurisdiction - Section 9 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - The court held that jurisdiction under Section 9 is determined by the ordinary residence of the minor, not the father. Since the minor children resided with the mother in Bangalore, the Family Court at Bangalore had jurisdiction. The husband's petition under Section 9 was filed in the wrong court, and the Family Court correctly rejected his objection. (Paras 2-5) B) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction - Residence of Minor - Section 9 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - The court interpreted Section 9 to mean that the court having jurisdiction is where the minor ordinarily resides. The father's residence is irrelevant if the minor lives elsewhere. The Family Court's order upholding its jurisdiction was affirmed. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court at Bangalore has jurisdiction to entertain the guardianship petition filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, when the wife and minor children reside in Bangalore and the husband resides in Coorg.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Family Court's order that it has jurisdiction to entertain the guardianship petition. The court held that jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act is determined by the ordinary residence of the minor, not the father's residence. Since the minor children resided with the mother in Bangalore, the Family Court at Bangalore had jurisdiction.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction under Section 9 of Guardians and Wards Act
- 1890 is determined by the minor's ordinary residence
- not the father's residence
- Family Court has jurisdiction where the minor resides with the mother
- Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India against interlocutory order on jurisdiction is maintainable but dismissed on merits.
