Headline
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court stated ‘Ordinary Residence of Minor’ decides custody jurisdiction.
Summary
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court stated that under the Guardian and Wards Act,in custody cases “ordinary residence” of a minor is the main factor in determining jurisdiction, not the location of the natural guardian. The court rejected the plea of a mother for custody of her daughters due to jurisdiction issues.
Key Facts
- Case Name: Sabahat Sanna vs. Dr.Shabir
- Judges Name: Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Rajesh Sekhri
- The mother asked for the custody of her daughters, aged 5 and 4, residing with the father in Poonch.
- The court upheld a decision of the family court, rejecting the plea based on the children’s “ordinary residence.”
Legal Insights
Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act stresses that the jurisdiction in custody cases depends on the “ordinary residence of the child,” not temporary or deemed custody with the mother under personal law.
Impact
This decision showcases the distinction between a guardian’s residence and the child’s actual place of ordinary residence in deciding legal jurisdiction.
Why it Matters
The ruling shed light on the legal interpretation of “ordinary residence” in custody disputes, by making sure that jurisdiction aligns with the child’s established residence.
Source:
