Husband sought transfer of his custody petition under the Guardians and Wards Act from Family Court Pune to Jalgaon on the ground that the minor had shifted residence. The wife showed the minor was admitted to a school at Navi Mumbai, so no transfer to Jalgaon arose; the application was rejected.
None granted; transfer application rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
27mca67-25
2026:BHC-AUG:2270
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
27 MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 67 OF 2025
Ganesh Sukhdev Patil
VERSUS
Jyoti Ganesh Patil
Mr. Madhukar M. Parghane, Advocate for Applicant Mr. Suresh P. Salgar, Advocate for Respondent
PER COURT :-
the applicant instituted Petition D No.44 of 2023 before the learned Family Court, Pune, seeking custody of minor child, under section 7, 19(B) and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, at that time, the minor was residing at Pune. However, subsequently, during pendency of the said petition, the minor and his mother
1 of 5
27mca67-25
started residing at Jalgaon. It is, therefore, necessary to transfer Petition D No.44 of 2023 from the file of learned Family Court, Pune to the file of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon.
"23. Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 makes a specific provision as regards the jurisdiction of the court to entertain a claim for grant of custody of a minor. While sub-section (1) of Section 9 identifies the court competent to pass an order for the custody of the person of the minor, sub-sections (2) and (3) thereof deal with courts that can be approached for guardianship of the property owned by the minor. Section 9(1) alone is. therefore, relevant for our purpose. It says:
"9. Court having jurisdiction to entertain application. (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
2 of 5
27mca67-25
place where the minor ordinarily resides."
"8] From the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court, it is apparent that the word 'ordinarily resides' has nothing to do with the time spent by a persons at a particular place but his intention to reside at a particular place after reaching there is to be seen. And, in the case at hand, the daughter was residing with her father the respondent no.2 until
3 of 5
27mca67-25
12.07.2020, on which date, she took off with her mother to Nagpur. In Nagpur, her mother got her admitted in Aaditya Birla Public School, Nagda. It clearly leads to one and the only conclusion that after reaching Nagpur, the minor intended to reside at Nagpur only and in such circumstances, taking note of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the said case of Ruchi Mazoo (supra), this court is of the considered opinion that the minor intended to reside at Nagpur only which also gives rise to the presumption that she is the ordinarily residing at Nagpur only and not at Nagda, where her father has filed the application."
4 of 5
27mca67-25
( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. )
JPChavan
5 of 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Petition D No.44 of 2023 for custody of the minor should be transferred from Family Court, Pune to Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalgaon in view of the minor's ordinary residence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ruch Majoo Vs. Sanjeev MajooRelied on¶4
(2011) 6 SCC 479 · Who else cites this
Smt. Kalyani Saraswat Vs. Gajendra SaraswatRelied on¶5
Misc. Petition No.2147 of 2021
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Ganesh Sukhdev Patil
Jyoti Ganesh Patil
Y. G. Khobragade
As recorded by the court registry
6 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
