Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)Section 12 in The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890
Aparna Banerjee vs Tapan Banerjee on 8 February, 1984
In Smt. Aparna Banerjee
v. Tapan Banerjee, AIR 1986 Punj and Har 113
considering the fact that the children were
living with her mother for more than 3 years,
the Court rejected the application for the
Tr.P.(C).No. 23 of 2023 Page 14
Page 15 of 18
custody of the child filed by the father at a
place where he was residing."
Chimanlal Ganpat vs Rajaram Maganchand Oswal on 2 November, 1936
In Chimanlal Ganpat v. Rajaram
Maganchand Oswal, AIR 1937; Bom 158, it was
held that under the aforesaid Act, in order to
give the Court jurisdiction the minor must be
'ordinarily resident' within the local limits of the
jurisdiction of the Court The same view was
expressed in Sarada Nayar v. Vayankara Amma,
AIR 1957 Ker 158. However, the Court further
held that such a place of residence has to be
determined by finding out as to where the
minor was ordinarily residing and where such
residence would have continued but for the
recent removal of the minor to a different
Tr.P.(C).No. 23 of 2023 Page 13
Page 14 of 18
place.
Jamuna Prasad vs Mst. Panna And Ors. on 2 April, 1959
In Jamuna Prasad v. Mst. Panna, AIR
1960 All 285, it was held that the words
"ordinarily resident" have a different meaning
than "residence at the time of the application"
Shah Harichand Ratanchand vs Virbbal And Ors. on 14 September, 1973
In Shah Harichand Ratanchand v. Virbbal,
AIR 1975 Guj 150, the Court held that the
legislative test of the Court which has
jurisdiction is the Court where the minor
ordinarily resides and not the Court where, the
father resides and with whom the minor must
be deemed to have been in constructive
custody.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Tilak Raj Kapoor vs Smt. Asha Kapoor on 21 November, 1978
However, in Tilak Raj Kapoor v. Smt.
Asha Kapoor, AIR 1979 Raj 128, wherein it was
held that the test, which the legislature has
provided is that the Court which has jurisdiction
for hearing an application is the Court where
the minor 'ordinarily resides' and with whom
the minor must be deemed to have been in
constructive custody.
1