Jharkhand High Court Quashes Ranchi Court's Jurisdiction In Custody Case | Holds Ordinarily Resides Means Present Abode With Father In Bihar Sharif Not Past Stay With Grandmother
Isabella Mariam
The Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi, comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar, set aside an order of the Family Court, Ranchi, concerning a jurisdictional dispute in a case involving the custody of two minor children. The appeal was filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, contesting the jurisdictional competence of the Family Court, Ranchi, in entertaining a guardianship suit initiated by the children's maternal grandmother.
The court conclusively stated that the jurisdiction for the guardianship petition lies with the Family Court at Bihar Sharif, District Nalanda, where the children are presently residing with their father, the natural guardian, and not at Ranchi where they resided before November 8, 2021.
The case originated from Original (Guardian) Suit No. 308 of 2022, filed by the maternal grandmother of two minor children, under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The petitioner sought custody of her grandchildren following the death of their mother on May 17, 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic.
It was contended by the petitioner that both children were born and brought up in Ranchi and resided with their deceased mother and maternal grandparents until November 8, 2021, when the appellant, their father, allegedly took them to Bihar Sharif, Nalanda, under the pretext of a medical consultation and subsequently retained their custody.
Upon receipt of the notice, the appellant contested the suit’s maintainability on the grounds of jurisdiction, asserting his status as the natural guardian under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. He submitted that the children had been residing with him at Bihar Sharif since November 8, 2021, and supported his claims by producing their school admission records and Aadhar documents reflecting their residence in Nalanda.
On May 19, 2023, the appellant filed a preliminary objection specifically challenging the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Ranchi, under Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which stipulates that a guardianship application must be filed in the district where the minor ordinarily resides. The respondent, in rebuttal filed on June 26, 2023, held that the children had their habitual residence in Ranchi before November 8, 2021, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon the Ranchi court.
The Family Court, Ranchi, dismissed the appellant’s objection on January 17, 2024, prompting the present appeal.
Mr. Rishi Pallava, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the minors had been residing continuously with their father in Bihar Sharif, Nalanda, since November 8, 2021, and therefore, under Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the proper jurisdiction lies with the Family Court at Bihar Sharif.
He further invoked Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, affirming that as the natural guardian, the father holds precedence in guardianship matters.
In support, he relied on several precedents:
- Ruchi Majoo vs. Sanjeev Majoo, (2011) 6 SCC 479
- Rakhi Kumari @ Rakhi Kumari Mishra vs. Subhash Kumar Mishra, 2017 SCC OnLine Jhar 178
- Divya J. Nair vs. S.K. Sreekanth, 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 3375
Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Senior Advocate, along with Mrs. Neeharika Mazumdar and Mr. Rahul Pandey, represented the respondent. They submitted that the minors were permanently residing in Ranchi before their mother’s demise and were unlawfully taken by their father to Bihar Sharif. Therefore, the ordinary residence of the minors, for the purpose of jurisdiction, remained Ranchi. Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court’s judgement in Ruchi Majoo vs. Sanjeev Majoo.
The Division Bench extensively examined the term "ordinarily resides" under Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and reviewed multiple precedents, including the authoritative judgement in Ruchi Majoo vs. Sanjeev Majoo.
The court recorded: "The word ‘ordinarily resides’ does not speak of the past rather of the present place of residence." The bench further observed that since both minors were residing with their father at Bihar Sharif and were enrolled in educational institutions there, their present ordinary residence was at Bihar Sharif, District Nalanda.
The Bench noted that although the children previously resided in Ranchi, their relocation to Bihar Sharif on November 8, 2021, constituted a change in their habitual residence. The court recorded, "Moving of minors from one place to another does not help parties who raise the plea of jurisdiction. The main question is whether the minors were ordinarily residing in any particular place on the date of filing the petition."
The court also dismissed the argument related to the alleged abduction of the children, noting that the criminal case registered on that basis had resulted in the acquittal of the appellant. Thus, the Family Court's reliance on the past residence of the children and alleged abduction was held to be legally unsustainable.
The Bench decisively stated: "The learned Family Judge has gone into the past, ignoring the true meaning of ‘ordinarily resides’ as defined under Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The competent jurisdiction lies where the children are presently residing."
The Division Bench set aside the impugned order dated January 17, 2024, passed by the Family Court, Ranchi, in Original Suit No. 308 of 2022. The court held:
"Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.01.2024 passed in Original Suit No. 308 of 2022 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent is at liberty to make appropriate application before the Court having its jurisdiction."
All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Rishi Pallava, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Senior Advocate; Mrs. Neeharika Mazumdar, Advocate; Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate
Case Title: Amit Kumar Sinha vs. Indu Bala Devi
Neutral Citation: 2025: JHHC:13852-DB
Case Number: F.A. No. 109 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, Justice Rajesh Kumar
[Read/Download order]
