Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Rajasthan High Court: In an appeal filed by the father seeking quashing of the judgment passed by the Family Court, whereby his petition under Sections 10 and 25, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (Guardians Act) for minor child’s custody was returned without being decided on merits for lack of territorial jurisdiction, the Division Bench of Arun Monga* and Yogendra Kumar Purohit, JJ. upheld the return of father’s custody petition.
Also read: Custody of Children
Background
In the present case, it was so that after a few years of marriage, matrimonial discord arose, and the mother left the matrimonial home, Bikaner, to reside at her parental house, Sujangarh. She took the children without the knowledge or consent of their father. His repeated requests to meet the children were allegedly denied. Thus, he sought guardianship and custody of his minor children by initiating proceedings.
The Family Court at Bikaner allowed the father’s application under Section 12, Guardians Act. However, despite having exercised jurisdiction the Court returned the petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Hence, the father approached the High Court.
Analysis and Decision
Considering Section 9, Guardians Act, the Court stated that in no uncertain terms, the provision envisages that the petition should be filed where the minor ordinarily resides.
The Court further stated that “Merely because the final adjudication by the Family Court is based on the premise that the main petition itself was not maintainable before it for lack of territorial jurisdiction, the final order under appeal herein cannot be invalidated on the ground that the main petition had since been earlier entertained and the ad interim application under Section 12, Guardians Act had also been disposed of”. The Court opined that the Family Court ought to have proceeded with the main petition, even if there was a want of territorial jurisdiction.
The Court held that the Family Court rightly refrained from expressing any opinion in the matter once it found that it did not have the requisite jurisdiction on the territorial grounds. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal and state that no grounds to interfere were made out.
[Amarchand v. Papita, D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1031 of 2026, decided on 23-2-2026]
*Judgement authored by Justice Arun Monga
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Tabish Samdani, Advocate
