Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a custody petition must be filed where the child resides, not where the guardian lives, reinforcing jurisdiction clarity in child custody disputes.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHANDIGARH: In a recent ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified the jurisdictional requirement for custody cases under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Justice Harkesh Manuja, while deciding the case on September 22, 2025, set aside the order of the Family Court, Faridabad, holding that the custody petition must be filed in the court where the minor child is actually and physically residing.
Case Background
The dispute arose between Hitesh Kumar, the petitioner-husband, and Jyoti Sharma, the respondent-wife, over the custody of their minor son, Master Bavyan Singla. Jyoti Sharma approached the Family Court at Faridabad by filing a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking custody of the child.
Hitesh Kumar, however, contested the maintainability of the petition, contending that the minor was residing with him at Kondapur in Telangana and therefore, the Family Court at Faridabad had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
On this basis, he filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the custody petition. The Family Court, Faridabad, rejected this plea by its order dated 16.02.2022, which led the father to challenge the decision by filing a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
High Court’s Observations
The Court relied on the recent Division Bench judgment in Rajesh v. Komal (FAO-2294-2024, decided on 27.08.2024), which clarified the interpretation of Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
Quoting the ruling, the Court emphasized:
“The intention of the legislature in Section 9 is that an application for guardianship of a minor shall lie to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor is actually and physically residing, and not based on the proviso to Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.”
Final Order:
- The High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the father.
- The Family Court’s order dated 16.02.2022 was set aside.
- The mother was given liberty to approach the competent court at Kondapur (Telangana) for seeking custody.
Appearance:
For the petitioner: Advocate Atul Goyal
For the Respondent: Advocate Kunal Dawar, Advocate Shruti Mandhotra
Case Title:
HITESH KUMAR versus JYOTI SHARMA
CR-1808-2024 (O&M)
Read Order:
