By Shazia Siddiqui

In a recent legal decision of significance, the Karnataka High Court has overturned a prior ruling issued by the III Additional Principal Family Judge, Mysuru, pertaining to territorial jurisdiction in a dispute over child custody. The case originated from a conflict involving the grandparents of a minor child who contested the jurisdiction of the Family Court in Mysuru. The core issue revolved around the custody of the child, who had been residing with the grandparents in Chamarajanagar district subsequent to the passing of their daughter, the child’s parent. Meanwhile, the child’s father, residing in Mysuru, sought custody rights. The dispute escalated when the Family Court declined the petitioners’ request to transfer the case to Chamarajanagar, leading to an appeal.

In its ruling, the Karnataka High Court emphasized the pivotal principle that jurisdiction in cases concerning child custody is contingent upon the minor’s ordinary residence. This stance was fortified by invoking Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which stipulates that applications for guardianship should be filed in the court where the minor child resides. The court reaffirmed that jurisdiction is not vested in the location where the parents reside but rather where the child primarily dwells. Consequently, the High Court discredited the Family Court’s interpretation, which had erroneously prioritized the parents’ residence over the children.

The rationale behind the High Court’s ruling lay in its thorough examination of pertinent legal frameworks and precedents. Specifically, reference was made to the Supreme Court’s verdict in a relevant case which underscored that the minor’s ordinary residence dictates jurisdiction in matters of child custody. Moreover, the High Court refuted the Family Court’s reliance on a specific section of the Code of Civil Procedure, deeming it incompatible with the specific provisions outlined in the Guardians and Wards Act.

The High Court elucidated that the determination of ordinary residence hinges upon evidential proof regarding the intention of the involved parties in facilitating the child’s stay. This assertion reiterates the court’s stance that the paramount consideration is the well-being of the child, rather than the convenience of the parents. By setting aside the Family Court’s order, the High Court not only safeguarded the procedural rights of the minor but also upheld the principles of justice and fairness.

The significance of this ruling extends beyond the immediate case, as it is poised to establish a precedent guiding future legal proceeding. By strictly adhering to the residence criteria delineated in the Guardians and Wards Act, courts are better equipped to safeguard the best interests of the child. Furthermore, this decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that legal processes are conducted in accordance with established laws and principles, thereby fostering a fair and equitable legal system.

Case Title: Samiulla Saheb & Anr. V. Mohammed Sameer

Citation: WP No. 6789 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

Click here to read/Download the judgement