Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Vanaraj Vs RANI

Vanaraj vs RANI

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 27, 2026
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1493353

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
TR CMP/1200/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vanaraj

Respondent

RANI

Excerpt

.....act, 1890, an applicationwith respect to the guardianship of the person of a minor shall be made to the court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor “ordinarily resides”. the expression “ordinarily resides” is a jurisdictional fact which may, depending on the pleadings and materials, require adjudication.5. in the case on hand, the petitioners assert that the minor has been residingat tiruppur with them. if that be so, the petitioners have an efficacious remedy to raise a jurisdictional objection before the court where the g.w.o.p. is presently pending, seeking return of the petition for page3 of 7 presentation before the proper court, or such other orders as are permissible in law. the trial court is the proper forum to first examine the plea of “ordinary residence” on the parties’ pleadings and material, and to pass appropriate orders.6. this court is not inclined, in exercise of transfer jurisdiction, to withdrawthe proceedings and direct transfer solely on the basis of a contested jurisdictional assertion. doing so would amount to this court effectively determining the foundational jurisdictional fact without the benefit of a full contest at the first instance, which is neither necessary nor appropriate in a transfer petition.7. however, considering the circumstances of the case and the welfaredimension involved, it is observed that, if the petitioners move the family court, theni with an application raising the objection under section 9(1) of the guardians and wards act, the said court shall consider the same expeditiously, on its own merits, after hearing all parties, and without being influenced by any observation made herein.page4 of 78. in the result, the transfer civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed. no costs. connected miscellaneous petition(s), if any, are closed. 27-02-2026 index: yes/nospeaking/non-speaking orderneutral citation: yes/no mfa page5 of 7 to1. family court, theni2. family court at tiruppur page6 of 7.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE AND

1. Vanaraj S/o. Badanan, Padiyakarar Compound, PAP

2. Murugeswari W/o. Vanaraj, Padiyakarar Compound, PAP ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. Rani W/o. Manivel, No.342, Devaram Main Road,

2. V. Manivel S/o. Vellaiappan, No.342, Devaram Main Road, ..Respondent(s)

1. Vanaraj S/o. Badanan, Padiyakarar Compound, PAP

2. Murugeswari W/o. Vanaraj, Padiyakarar Compound, PAP ..Appellant(s) Page1 of 7 Vs

1. Rani W/o. Manivel, No.342, Devaram Main Road,

2. V. Manivel

S/o. Vellaiappan, No.342, Devaram Main Road, ..Respondent(s) To withdraw the GWOP No.225/2025 on the file of the Family Court, Theni and to transfer the same to Family Court at Tiruppur and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court. To Stay all the proceedings in GWOP No.225/2025 on the file of the Family Court, Theni till the pending disposal of the above TR CMP. For Petitioner(s): Mr.I.M.Siddartha Ramarajan For Respondent(s): No appearance

Order

Heard.

2. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking transfer of the

G.W.O.P. pending on the file of the Family Court, Theni, to the competent Court at Tiruppur. The petitioners are the `maternal grandparents of the minor. It is submitted that both the parents of the Page2 of 7 minor are no more, and that the minor has been in the care and custody of the maternal grandparents at Tiruppur. It is further submitted that the paternal grandparents have instituted the G.W.O.P. at Theni.

3. The situation narrated is undoubtedly unfortunate. The Court is conscious

that the lis concerns the welfare of a child, and that all stakeholders are grieving. Nevertheless, the transfer jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC is not to be exercised in a manner that pre-empts statutory requirements or sanctifies an assumed jurisdiction without the issue being tested in the manner known to law.

4. Under Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, an application

with respect to the guardianship of the person of a minor shall be made to the Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor “ordinarily resides”. The expression “ordinarily resides” is a jurisdictional fact which may, depending on the pleadings and materials, require adjudication.

5. In the case on hand, the petitioners assert that the minor has been residing

at Tiruppur with them. If that be so, the petitioners have an efficacious remedy to raise a jurisdictional objection before the Court where the G.W.O.P. is presently pending, seeking return of the petition for Page3 of 7 presentation before the proper Court, or such other orders as are permissible in law. The trial Court is the proper forum to first examine the plea of “ordinary residence” on the parties’ pleadings and material, and to pass appropriate orders.

6. This Court is not inclined, in exercise of transfer jurisdiction, to withdraw

the proceedings and direct transfer solely on the basis of a contested jurisdictional assertion. Doing so would amount to this Court effectively determining the foundational jurisdictional fact without the benefit of a full contest at the first instance, which is neither necessary nor appropriate in a transfer petition.

7. However, considering the circumstances of the case and the welfare

dimension involved, it is observed that, if the petitioners move the Family Court, Theni with an application raising the objection under Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, the said Court shall consider the same expeditiously, on its own merits, after hearing all parties, and without being influenced by any observation made herein.

Page4 of 7

8. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition(s), if any, are closed. 27-02-2026 Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No MFA Page5 of 7 To

1. Family Court, Theni

2. Family Court at Tiruppur Page6 of 7 DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE J. MFA AND 27-02-2026 Page7 of 7

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial