Ganesh Sukhdev Patil v. Jyoti Ganesh Patil

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 CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.

Dated : 19th January, 2026 PER COURT :- 1.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant-husband and learned counsel for the non applicant-wife.

2.

By the present application, the applicant is seeking transfer of Petition D No.44 of 2023 from the file of learned Family Court, Pune to the file of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant canvassed that when 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

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. 4.

In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the case of Ruch Majoo Vs. Sanjeev Majoo, (2011) 6 SCC 479, wherein, it has been held that for determining the jurisdiction of the Court under section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, it is the " ordinary residence" of minor. The expression used is "where the minor ordinarily resides". In paragraphs 23 and 24, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

"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

place where the minor ordinarily resides."

24. It is evident from a bare reading of the above that the solitary test for determining the jurisdiction of the court under Section 9 of the Act is the "ordinary residence" of the minor. The expression used is "where the minor ordinarily resides". Now whether the minor is ordinarily residing at a given place is primarily a question of intention which in turn is a question of fact. It may at best be a mixed question of law and fact, but unless the jurisdictional facts are admitted it can never be a pure question of law, capable of being answered without an enquiry into the factual aspects of the controversy."

5.

The learned counsel for the applicant further relied on the judgment dated 04.01.2023, passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Bench at Indore in Misc. Petition No.2147 of 2021 (Smt. Kalyani Saraswat Vs. Gajendra Saraswat), wherein the Madhya Pradesh High Court considered the case of Ruch Majoo Vs. Sanjeev Majoo, cited supra, and observed in paragraph No.8 as under:

"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

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."

6.

The learned counsel for the non applicant has filed affidavit in reply and strongly resisted the application on ground that the applicant is residing at Pune within the jurisdiction of Family Court at Pune. The minor daughter Urvi, aged about 10 years old is now admitted in Radhai Inksap School at Kamothe Node, Navi Mumbai and the non applicant has also shifted to Navi Mumbai, nearby the school of her daughter. Therefore, if the said proceeding is transferred from the Family Court, Pune, it would cause inconvenience to her in attending the same. Moreover, the minor is not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon; hence, prayed for rejection of the application.

7.

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant has produced before before court, the fee receipt, issued by Cashier of Radhai Inksap School, Kamothe Node. On perusal of the same, it appears that for the academic year 2025-2026, the minor, Urvi, has been admitted to Grade V, Division 'A', at Radhai Inksap School, Kamothe Node, Navi Mumbai. So also, the non applicant has stated that, for Education purpose of her daughter, she is shifted to Navi Mumbai. Therefore, no question arises for transfer of Petition D No.44 of 2023 from the file of learned Family Court, Pune to the file of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon.

8.

In view of the above discussion, I am not inclined to grant the application and accordingly, it is rejected. ( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) JPChavan