Jurisdiction under Guardians and Wards Act is determined by the "ordinary residence" of the minor

Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Jurisdiction of Family Court in Balaghat for Guardianship Case Court emphasizes 'ordinary residence' as key determinant of jurisdiction under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890

In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court, comprising Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, dismissed an appeal challenging the jurisdictional decision of the Family Court in Balod regarding a guardianship application. The case, Teman Lal Sahu v. Smt. Hemlata Sahu, hinged on the interpretation of the 'ordinary residence' clause under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

The appellant, Teman Lal Sahu, had filed for guardianship of his minor daughter under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, read with Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. His application was originally submitted to the Family Court in Balod. However, the Family Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction, as the minor, along with her mother, Smt. Hemlata Sahu, had been residing in Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh, since 2017. The court determined that the jurisdiction belonged to the Family Court in Balaghat, where the minor was considered to be 'ordinarily residing.'

The appellant contested this decision, arguing that the Family Court in Balod should have jurisdiction. However, the High Court upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing the legislative intent behind the term 'ordinarily resides.' The court clarified that 'ordinary residence' signifies more than just a temporary stay, and the place where the minor and her mother have been living since 2017 was deemed their ordinary residence.

In reinforcing its decision, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo (2011) 6 SCC 479, which underscores 'ordinary residence' as the primary criterion for jurisdiction in guardianship cases. The court noted that jurisdictional facts, such as the admitted residence of the minor in Balaghat, were crucial in determining the proper forum for the guardianship application.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, granting liberty to the appellant to seek an appropriate remedy in the jurisdictional Family Court of Balaghat. The decision reinforces the importance of 'ordinary residence' in determining jurisdiction, providing clarity for future guardianship disputes under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

Bottom Line:

Jurisdiction under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is determined by the "ordinary residence" of the minor, which is more than a temporary residence.

Statutory provision(s): Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 Section 9(1), Family Courts Act, 1984 Section 19(1), Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 Section 6

Teman Lal Sahu v. Smt. Hemlata Sahu, (Chhattisgarh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2810824