A minor’s ordinary residence remains the pre-removal home despite a recent, compelled relocation.

The respondent-father instituted G&WC No. 200/2025 before the Family Court, Bengaluru, seeking permanent custody of the minor child, Master Vihaan D. Kadri, and his appointment as guardian.

The parties married at Bengaluru in 2017 and resided there after marriage; the child was born at Bengaluru on 2 March 2020 and lived there with both parents until 9 January 2025.

Owing to matrimonial differences, the petitioner-mother left Bengaluru with the child on 10 January 2025 and began residing at her parental home in Tumakuru.

The father filed the guardianship petition at Bengaluru on 6 June 2025.

The mother filed I.A. No. VII under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, contending that the child ordinarily resided at Tumakuru and that the petition should be returned for presentation before the competent court at Tumakuru.

The Family Court dismissed the application, holding that the child’s ordinary residence was Bengaluru and that it had jurisdiction.

The mother challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the Family Court, Bengaluru had territorial jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, based on the place where the minor ordinarily resided.

Whether the child’s residence at Tumakuru after the mother’s departure from Bengaluru constituted a change in the child’s ordinary residence, or was merely a temporary or compelled relocation for jurisdictional purposes.

Whether the Family Court’s refusal to return the guardianship petition under Order VII Rule 10 CPC warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, under which an application concerning guardianship of the person of a minor must be filed before the District Court having jurisdiction where the minor “ordinarily resides”.

Relying principally on Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo, (2011) 6 SCC 479, the Court held that ordinary residence is the controlling jurisdictional test and is ordinarily a mixed question of fact and law requiring consideration of the factual circumstances.

The Court further relied on authorities holding that ordinary residence is distinct from temporary, compelled, or merely actual residence; a recent removal of the child does not by itself shift jurisdiction; and residence at the time of filing is not conclusive.

The residence of a natural guardian, the pendency of other civil or criminal proceedings, school admission, or the length of a temporary stay cannot independently determine the child’s ordinary residence.

The Court also considered the principle that the ordinary residence of a minor child is not automatically the place where the natural guardian resides.

The Court found that the child had lived continuously in Bengaluru from birth until 9 January 2025, whereas the move to Tumakuru occurred only on 10 January 2025, shortly before the guardianship petition was filed on 6 June 2025.

The mother’s own reply notice stated that she and the child had taken shelter at her parents’ house in Tumakuru because she had no alternative, indicating that the relocation was compelled by the matrimonial dispute rather than an established and voluntary change of the child’s permanent home.

Applying Section 9 and the authorities on ordinary residence, the Court held that the child’s recent residence at Tumakuru could not, on the facts, displace the child’s established ordinary residence at Bengaluru.

The Court also clarified that the child’s schooling at Tumakuru and the pendency of related proceedings there did not independently confer jurisdiction.

Since the Family Court had correctly assessed the jurisdictional facts, no supervisory interference under Article 227 was justified.

The child’s subsequent residence at Tumakuru was treated as a recent and compelled relocation, not as a change in ordinary residence.

Consequently, the order dated 25 March 2026 dismissing I.A. No. VII was upheld, and the writ petition seeking its quashing and return of the guardianship petition was dismissed.