Smt. Anjali Singh vs Shailesh Singh

The present application under Section 24 of C.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant for transfer of Case No. 49 of 2025 (Shailesh Singh Versus Smt. Anjali Singh) under Section 25 of the Guardians & Wards Act, pending before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pratapgarh, to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur.

¶11

It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that the marriage of the applicant with the opposite party was solemnized on 16.04.2016 according to Hindu rites and rituals at Kanpur and from their wedlock one son, namely Atharv Singh, was born on 04.02.2021, who is at present residing with the applicant at Kanpur.

¶12

It is submitted that the applicant is residing with her old parents at Kanpur, has no independent source of income and has no male members to accompany her to attend the proceedings at Pratapgarh. It is further submitted that her father is ailing and mother is suffering from chronic diseases making it difficult to attend court at Pratapgarh as such she wants the transfer of the aforesaid case from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pratapgarh, to the Court of equivalent jurisdiction at Kanpur.

¶13

It is contended on behalf of learned counsel for the applicant that the

¶14

TACL No. 287 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

minor son of the applicant, namely Atharv Singh is residing with the applicant who is the natural guardian of her minor son. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the annexures filed along with the supplementary affidavit, wherein Annexure No. 1, filed with the supplementary affidavit dated 12.12.2024, is relied upon to establish that the minor son of the applicant is studying at New Orchid Pre-School, Saket Nagar, Kanpur.

¶17

It is emphatically argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the territorial jurisdiction in respect of the proceedings filed under Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, in light of Section 9(1) of G uardians and Wards Act, 1890, is at Kanpur, being the place of residence of natural guardian. He further contended that the proceedings in question filed under Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 pending before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pratapgarh, lacks territorial jurisdiction and as such the instant proceedings is liable to be transferred to the competent Court at Kanpur.

¶18

Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, it provides that where the minor 'ordinarily resides' shall be the determining factor for the purpose of jurisdiction of the Court to entertain an application. For ready reference Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is reproduced herein below:-

¶19

9. Court having jurisdiction to entertain application.

¶20

(1) If the application is with respect to the guardianship of the person of the minor, it shall be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides.

¶21

(2) If the application is with respect to the guardianship of the property of the minor, it may be made either to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides or to a District Court having jurisdiction in a place where he has property.

¶22

(3) If an application with respect to the guardianship of the property of a minor is made to a District Court other than

¶23

TACL No. 287 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

that having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides, the Court may return the application if, in its opinion, the application would be disposed of more justly or conveniently by any other District Court having jurisdiction."

¶26

Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 contemplates the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in the matter of guardianship application. Firstly, when the application is in respect of guardianship of the person of a minor, it is to be filed at the Court under whose territorial jurisdiction the minor ordinarily resides. Secondly, if such an application relates to the property of the minor, there are two fora and the applicant may choose either of the two, namely, a Court under whose territorial jurisdiction the minor ordinarily resides, or under whose territorial jurisdiction minor has property.

¶27

The words and expression "ordinarily resides" which has got a different meaning than 'residence' at the time of application. The question as to the ordinary residence of the minor must be decided on the facts of each particular case and generally, the length of residence at a particular place determines the question, The expression 'the place where the minor ordinarily resides' means the place where the minor generally resides and would be expected to reside but for special circumstances.

¶28

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dheeraj versus Smt. Chetna Goswami reported in 2024 SCC OnLine All 1610 has observed as under:

¶29

For determining the territorial jurisdiction of the Court under section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the expression “where the minor ordinarily resides” is the pivotal point for consideration. The said expression has been used in different contexts and has often come up for interpretation before the courts of law. While reading the said expression “where the minor ordinarily resides”, it is imperative to see whether the minor is ordinarily residing at a given place? This is primarily a question of intention

¶30

TACL No. 287 of 2025

¶31

4

¶32

which, in turn, is a question of fact. It may at best be a mixed question of law and fact but unless jurisdictional facts are admitted, it can never be a pure question of law, capable of being answered without any enquiry into the factual aspects of the controversy.

¶33

Taking into consideration the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court finds it appropriate to dispose of the present application with liberty to the applicant to prefer an appropriate application before the court concerned where the proceedings in questions are pending.

¶34

Accordingly, the instant application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pratapgarh, and with a direction to the court concerned to consider the same and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the said application along with a certified copy of this order.

¶35

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶36

March 24, 2026

¶37

Manoj K.

¶38

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Anjali Singh v. Shailesh Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anjali Singh v. Shailesh Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shashank Gupta vs M/S Vatika Nirman Private Ltd. Lucknow Thru. Its Authorized Signatory

Shashank Gupta vs M/S Vatika Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorised Signatory

Shashank Gupta vs M/S Vatika Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Signatory

Sudha Jain and Another vs U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Rajya Niyojan Sansthan Lko. and Another

Anjali Singh vs Anuj Kumar Choudhary

Patel Advance Jv Thru. Authorized Representative Rajneesh Kumar vs Shri Arvind Mehta