Court rules that second petition for modification is impermissible; family court to decide on pending guardianship suit without fixed timeline from High Court
In a recent judgment dated October 9, 2026, the Jharkhand High Court (Division Bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad) dismissed a civil miscellaneous petition filed by Ankit Kumar Singh seeking clarification and modification of an earlier High Court order that granted interim custody of his minor daughter to the mother, Smt. Megha Singh. The case highlights the limits of High Court intervention in ongoing family disputes and emphasizes the jurisdiction of the Family Court in guardianship matters.
Background:
The dispute arose out of matrimonial conflicts between the petitioner-father and respondent-mother, who were married in 2017. Their daughter, born in July 2021, had been residing in Ranchi since birth. The mother initially filed a guardianship suit in Chapra, Bihar, which was dismissed on territorial jurisdiction grounds. She then filed a suit before the Family Court, Ranchi, seeking custody of the child.
The Family Court had granted the mother only visitation rights, allowing her to meet the child once every two months for 2-3 hours and communicate via virtual platforms. Dissatisfied with this, the mother appealed to the Jharkhand High Court, which overturned the Family Court's order and granted her interim custody of the minor child pending the final outcome of the guardianship suit. The Court also directed the Family Court to expedite the disposal of the guardianship proceedings.
Subsequent Proceedings:
The petitioner-father filed a petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking clarification or modification of the High Court's custody order. He contended that the mother was not participating in the ongoing guardianship proceedings and questioned the jurisdiction of the Family Court, given the child's residence. The father also sought a time-bound schedule for the disposal of the guardianship case.
However, the Court observed that the petition was essentially a disguised attempt to review the earlier order, which is impermissible under Section 151 CPC. The Court pointed out that the petitioner had already filed a similar petition which was withdrawn with liberty to approach the competent forum. Filing a second petition for the same relief was not maintainable.
Regarding the mother's alleged non-appearance and the jurisdictional objection, the Court stated these issues should be addressed by the Family Court where the suit is pending. The High Court cannot intervene in such factual and procedural matters through a petition under Section 151 CPC.
On the request for a fixed timeline for disposal of the guardianship suit, the High Court reiterated that while expeditious disposal is desirable, Constitutional Courts generally refrain from imposing time-bound schedules on subordinate courts except in exceptional circumstances. The Court cited recent Supreme Court precedents, including "High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh" (2024) and "Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra" (2024), affirming this principle.
Conclusion:
The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the earlier appellate order granting interim custody to the mother remains unmodified. The ongoing guardianship suit must be decided by the Family Court at Ranchi on its own merits and without unnecessary delay, but without any specific deadline imposed by the High Court.
This judgment underscores the procedural propriety required in seeking modifications of court orders and reaffirms the jurisdictional boundaries between High Courts and Family Courts in custody disputes. It also affirms the principle that Constitutional Courts should not ordinarily impose rigid timelines on subordinate courts.
Bottom Line:
Guardians and Wards Act - Interim custody of minor child - Petition under Section 151 CPC seeking clarification/modification of earlier appellate order granting temporary custody to mother dismissed - Second miscellaneous petition for same relief, after earlier one was withdrawn, held not maintainable in garb of clarification/review - Non-appearance of mother in pending guardianship case and objection as to territorial jurisdiction are matters for Family Court - High Court cannot ordinarily fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of pending case before subordinate court.
Statutory provision(s):
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 Sections 9, 12; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 151; Family Courts Act, 1984 Section 19(1)
Ankit Kumar Singh v. Smt. Megha Singh, (Jharkhand)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2994266
