A/3936/2026 of Sagaina Sujin Vs S.Baby Christy on 8 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

The present application has been filed for dismissing OP.No.635 of 2025, on the ground of lack on territorial jurisdiction. The original petition has been filed by the respondent, the maternal grandmother of minor, master V.J.Abner Simson born on 17.02.2020.

2. The admitted ground facts are as follows: The minor, V.J.Abner Simson was born to late S.V.Vijin and S.Jayarishitha. Unfortunately, in a tragic accident, both father and mother of the minor died on 13.11.2024. According to the petitioner in the O.P, the respondent in the application, who is the maternal grandmother, soon after the tragic accident when the respondent was in mental trauma, the paternal uncle and aunt, being the applicant herein, took custody of the minor grandson and took the child away to Kerala, where they reside in Neyyattinkara Town in Thiruvananthapuram District.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant, firstly contends that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the O.P under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1980, much less allow the application under Section 25 of the Act for the simple reason that the minor does not ordinary reside within the territorial

A No. 3936 of 2026

jurisdiction to this Court. In this regard, he takes me through the documents filed in support of the typed set of papers, including the Habeas Corpus Petition as well as a Writ Petition filed before this Court. The respondent’s maternal grandmother moved the Division Bench of this Court in HCP.No.3212 of 2024 and this Court after interacting with the minor child as well as the applicants herein found that the minor was not in illegal custody of the applicant herein and dismissed the HCP, by order dated 03.01.2025. The said order has become final, with no further appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by way of any special leave to appeal.

4. A writ petition in W.P.No.7824 of 2025 came to be filed by the respondent, maternal grandmother, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to enquire as to whether the child is in safe hands in the custody of the applicant herein. The said writ petition, by order dated 07.03.2025, was dismissed by this Court, giving liberty to the respondent, maternal grandmother to approach the competent Court for deciding the issue of guardianship and directed the competent forum to take into consideration the best interest of the minor child, before passing final orders. The learned counsel for the applicant would also bring to my notice that in the entire O.P, there is no whisper about the attempt made by the respondent, maternal grandmother, include the filing of the HCP as well as the Writ Petition.

A No. 3936 of 2026

5. Besides the learned counsel for the applicants also takes me through the averments in the guardian OP, where the petitioner does not even expressly state as to how this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the O.P and merely stating that the child was ordinarily residing in Chennai, would not be sufficient to bring the O.P within the jurisdiction of this Court. He therefore prays for dismissal of the OP itself by allowing the present application.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, maternal grandmother, who has entered appearance recently by change of Vakalat, states that the minor was born within the jurisdiction of this Court and the Birth Certificate of the minor clearly evidences the said fact. It is therefore the address that is furnished in the Birth Certificate that is shown as the address for the purposes of filing the O.P and brining it within the jurisdiction of this Court. The learned counsel for the respondent has also relied on the following decisions in Ruchi Majoo Vs. Sanjeev Majoo, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 479, Lahari Sakhamuri Vs. Sobhan Kodali, reported in (2019) 7 SCC 311, Jagdish Chandra Gupta Vs. Vimla Gupta, reported in AIR 2003 Allahabad 317 and Aparna Banerjee Vs. Tapan Banerjee, reported in AIR 1986 Pubjab and Haryana 113, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as the Allahabad High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court have dealt with the jurisdiction of the Courts to entertain an applicants for custody under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act. The learned counsel for the respondent further states

A No. 3936 of 2026

that as regards the suppression of material facts, the learned counsel states that since he is not the counsel who prepared the pleadings, he is unable to offer any explanation at this juncture.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

8. It is not in dispute that the minor is now in the custody of the applicants, respondent in the O.P, who is the paternal aunt, that is father's brother’s wife of the minor, master V.J.Abner Simson, who died, along with his wife on the same day in a tragic road accident. It is the specific contention of the applicants that the respondents participated in the last rites and ceremonies of the deceased, which took place at Nadaikavu at Nagarkoil, Kanyakumari District, from which place, the respondent came back to her residence in Chennai and the applicants took the minor child along with them to Neyyattinkara, where she resides. It is also the specific case of the applicants that the child has been enrolled in a Primary School at Neyyattinkara and his now pursuing standard I.

9. On going through the orders passed by this Court in the HCP, as well as the Writ Petition, I find that even in 2024, the respondent has made attempts to take custody of the minor maternal grandson. That attempts have failed with dismissal of the HCP and Writ Petition. However, in the Writ Petition, liberty

A No. 3936 of 2026

was granted to the respondent, grandmother to approach the competent Court of jurisdiction to seek guardianship of the minor. The learned counsel therefore submits that when such liberty has been granted in W.P.No.7824 of 2025, by order dated 07.03.2025, the O.P filed before this Court, in view of the birth of the minor within the jurisdiction of this Court, is well in order and does not require to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.

10. Unfortunately, I am unable to accept the arguments of the learned counsel of the respondent, for the simple reason that the foundation facts, which are necessary for entertaining the O.P before this Court are clearly wanting in the facts of the present case. The Jurisdiction of this Court depends on the residence of the minor, at the time of presentation of the O.P and the birth of the child within the jurisdiction of this Court is immaterial. Further, even according to the respondent maternal grandmother, she is aware of the fact that the minor is now in custody of the applicants herein, respondent in O.P in Neyyattinkara. She has also been visiting the child every month pursuant to the liberty being given in the HCP order. All these particulars have been suppressed in the OP filed by the respondent and as if the minor is residing ordinarily within the jurisdiction of this Court at Tiruvottriyur, giving the address, which was the residential address at the time of birth of the minor, the O.P has been filed and entertained.

A No. 3936 of 2026

11. It is now brought out by clear, acceptable and satisfactory documentary evidence that the child is not an ordinary resident of Chennai, but is ordinarily residing in Neyyattinkara Town, Thiruvananthapuram District to the knowledge of the respondent, maternal grandmother. It is also brought to my notice that the respondent has already filed an O.P for appointing her as the guardian, in which the respondent, maternal grandmother has been arrayed as the respondent. The said O.P is being contested by the respondent herself. Even this factum is not disclosed in O.P.No.635 of 2025. For all the foregoing reasons for want of territorial jurisdiction and also in view of the fact that the petitioner has not come clean before this Court, I am inclined to allow A.No.3936 of 2026.

12. In fine, this application in A.No.3936 of 2026 is allowed and consequently, O.P.No.635 of 2025 is dismissed. However, the dismissal of the OP will not come in the way of the respondent, maternal grandmother contesting the OP filed by the petitioner before the District Court at Neyyattinkara, on merits and in accordance with law. Any observations that may have been made for the purposes of deciding the maintainability of this OP shall not be put against the respondent. No costs. 08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA

A No. 3936 of 2026

P.B.BALAJI J. ATA A No. 3936 of 2026 AND OP NO. 635 OF 2025 08-10-2026