$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010123872025 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 99/2025 DINESH KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rishabh Kapur, Ms. Priyanshi Goel Advocates versus MOIRANGTHEM SUNITA DEVI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Mahesh Chand, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR O R D E R % 24.09.2026 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the judgment dated 11.12.2024 (“Impugned Judgment”) passed by the learned Judge, Family Court- 01, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (“Family Court”) in GP No. 9/2018, titled “Dinesh Kumar v. Moirangthem Sunita Devi, whereby, the learned Family Court returned the petition filed by the appellant under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (“the Act”), on the ground that, at the time of hearing, the minor child was residing in Manipur. 2. It is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 12.02.2008 at Delhi. A child was born from the said wedlock on 01.02.2013. Subsequently, differences arose between the parties resulting in the appellant filing a petition under Sections 7 and 25 of the Act seeking guardianship and custody of the minor child before This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 11:24:30 the learned Family Court. 3. Whilst the said petition remained pending for several years, the learned Family Court, on 11.12.2024, was informed that the respondent-mother had shifted to Manipur along with the minor child after the filing of the petition. 4. On the basis of the subsequent change in the place of residence of the minor child, the learned Family Court returned the petition with liberty to file the same before the court having territorial jurisdiction which is at the place where the minor child is presently residing. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 6. Section 9(1) of the Act provides: “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.” 7. A plain reading of Section 9(1) of the Act shows that, in a proceeding concerning the guardianship of the person of a minor, the relevant consideration is the place where the minor ordinarily resides at the time of initiation of the proceedings. The jurisdiction is therefore determined with reference to the facts relevant at the time of institution of the proceedings. 8. The fact that the minor child has subsequently shifted to another place during the pendency of the proceedings is not a relevant factor. 9. It is further relevant to note that no objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Family Court where the petition was instituted has been raised by filing an application under Order VII This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 11:24:30 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) at the relevant stage, nor has this issue been raised in the written statement. 10. The fact that during the pendency of the petition, the respondent and minor child has shifted to Manipur cannot be a ground for returning the petition that too when the objection was not taken by the respondent herein either in the reply or by filing an appropriate application. The learned Family Court appears to have proceeded mainly on the basis that, as on 11.12.2024, the minor child was residing in Manipur and returned the petition. In our view, mere subsequent change of residence, could not have resulted in the return of the petition which had been pending before the learned Family Court since 2018. 11. In view of the above discussion, the Impugned Judgment dated 11.12.2024, whereby the petition was returned on the ground that the minor child was residing in Manipur, cannot be sustained. The Impugned Judgment is set aside. 12. The petition, being GP No. 9/2018, is restored to its original number and position before the learned Family Court, which shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 13. Accordingly, the present appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2026/bs/sm This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 11:24:30