Territorial jurisdiction over a guardianship petition depends on the minor’s ordinary residence when filed.

The minor was born to the petitioner’s daughter and son-in-law, both of whom died in an accident on 13 November 2024.

The child was thereafter taken by his paternal aunt and uncle to Neyyattinkara, Kerala, where he was living and attending school.

The maternal grandmother filed O.P. No. 635 of 2025 seeking custody under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act.

The paternal aunt and uncle sought dismissal for want of territorial jurisdiction.

Earlier, the grandmother’s habeas corpus petition had been dismissed after the Court found no illegal custody; a later writ petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the competent court on guardianship.

The Court also noted that the grandmother had not disclosed those proceedings or the child’s residence in Kerala in the custody petition.

Whether the Madras High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the grandmother’s custody petition when the minor was ordinarily residing in Neyyattinkara at the time the petition was filed.

Whether the grandmother’s non-disclosure of the child’s current residence and related proceedings further supported dismissal of the petition.

The Court considered the Guardians and Wards Act and the grandmother’s application for custody under Section 25.

It applied the principle that territorial jurisdiction in a guardianship or custody proceeding depends on the minor’s ordinary residence at the time the proceeding is instituted; the child’s place of birth, or an address recorded at birth, does not by itself establish jurisdiction.

The Court also treated the omission of material facts concerning the child’s actual residence and earlier proceedings as relevant to whether the petition could be entertained.

The child was living in Neyyattinkara, attending school there, and was in the custody of the paternal relatives when the grandmother filed her petition.

The grandmother knew of that residence and had been visiting the child, yet relied on the address recorded at birth in Chennai and did not disclose the earlier proceedings or the child’s current circumstances.

The Court therefore held that birth in Chennai and the recorded address could not displace the child’s ordinary residence in Neyyattinkara or confer territorial jurisdiction on the Madras High Court.

It clarified that the dismissal did not prevent the grandmother from contesting the guardianship proceeding before the District Court at Neyyattinkara on its merits, and that observations made for deciding maintainability would not be held against her.

No costs were ordered.