By Shazia Siddiqui

In a recent legal case before the Allahabad High Court, a significant interpretation of Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act was made, highlighting the importance of a minor’s ordinary residence in custody matters. The case stemmed from a petition filed by Smt. Chetna Goswami, seeking custody of her child, Master Kunj. The appellant contested the jurisdiction of the Family Court at Ghaziabad, arguing that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction due to the minor’s temporary residence in Haryana.

Initially, the Family Court at Ghaziabad had ruled in favor of Smt. Chetna Goswami, asserting its jurisdiction over the matter. The court emphasized that jurisdiction should be determined by the minor’s ordinary residence, rather than any temporary stay. This decision was based on a comprehensive interpretation of Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The court reasoned that the term “ordinarily resides” in the context of custody cases does not equate to temporary residence but refers to the habitual place of residence of the minor.

The crux of the court’s rationale lay in the understanding that determining jurisdiction solely based on the minor’s temporary location would be contrary to the best interests of the child. By prioritizing the minor’s ordinary residence, the court aimed to ensure stability and consistency in custody arrangements, which are crucial for the child’s well-being and development. This interpretation was supported by legal precedent and established principles of family law, which emphasize the paramount importance of the child’s welfare in such matters.

The appellant, however, challenged this ruling before the Allahabad High Court, arguing that the lower court had erred in its interpretation of the law. The appellant contended that the temporary residence of the minor in Haryana should have been the determining factor for jurisdiction, as opposed to his ordinary residence. The appellant further asserted that allowing the Family Court at Ghaziabad to exercise jurisdiction in this case would set a precedent that could lead to forum shopping in custody disputes.

In response to these arguments, the Allahabad High Court carefully reviewed the provisions of Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act and considered the arguments presented by both parties. After a thorough examination of the relevant legal principles and precedents, the High Court affirmed the decision of the Family Court at Ghaziabad. The High Court reiterated that jurisdiction in custody matters should indeed be determined by the minor’s ordinary residence, emphasizing the importance of stability and continuity in the child’s life.

The significant observation made by the Allahabad High Court in this case was its reaffirmation of the principle that the best interests of the child should always be paramount in custody proceedings. By prioritizing the minor’s ordinary residence over temporary stays, the court aimed to ensure that custody arrangements are made with due consideration to the child’s welfare and upbringing. This observation underscores the broader goal of family law, which is to protect and promote the rights and well-being of children in contentious legal proceedings.

Case Title: Dheeraj Vs. Smt Chetna Goswami

Neutral Citation: 2024: AHC:87786-DB

Click here to read/Download the judgement