Court Reverses Family Court's Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction on Child's Ordinary Residence
In a significant judgment, the Karnataka High Court has set aside a Family Court order, reinstating a petition by Priyanka V. for the custody of her minor child. The Division Bench, comprising Mr. D.K. Singh and H. Shanthi Bhushan, emphasized the welfare of the child and reiterated the principle that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the child’s "ordinary residence" prior to any dispute or removal.
The case revolves around the custody of a minor, Master Anwith Dev P. Veerapur, aged four years and ten months, whose custody was sought by his mother, Priyanka V. The Family Court had earlier dismissed her petition, citing lack of jurisdiction since the child was residing with the father, Prashanth D. Veerapur, in Ilkal Taluk, Bagalkot District. The High Court, however, found this approach too narrow, emphasizing that the child’s original residence with the mother in Bangalore should determine jurisdiction.
The Bench highlighted the statutory preference for maternal custody under Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, especially for children below five years. It noted that the welfare and best interests of the child are paramount, and that the Family Court had erred by focusing solely on the child’s current location.
The High Court underscored that unilateral actions by a parent should not be allowed to determine jurisdiction, which is meant to protect the child's welfare above all. It stressed that the Family Court should have considered the circumstances under which the child was taken from Bangalore and the pending matrimonial proceedings between the parents in Bangalore.
The High Court has ordered the Family Court to reassess the case, considering the child’s welfare, the statutory preference for maternal custody, and the child’s ordinary residence. The matter is scheduled to be heard by the Family Court on September 2, 2026, with directions to also address the interim custody request.
Bottom Line :
Custody of a minor child - Determination of "ordinary residence" under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Welfare of the child as paramount consideration - Jurisdiction of Family Court cannot be defeated merely by removal of the child by one parent to another place.
Statutory provision(s): Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 Section 9, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 Section 6(a), Family Courts Act, 1984
Priyanka V. v. Prashanth D. Veerapur, (Karnataka)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2969660
