1. The appellant is a Mainland resident and the mother of G, a girl who was born in 2007 and is a Hong Kong permanent resident by birth. Her father is the respondent, also a Hong Kong permanent resident, who was and still is married with a wife and two children in Hong Kong. Shortly after G was born, the appellant and the respondent separated and the appellant brought G to live on the Mainland. 2. In 2012, the appellant applied in the Family Court for maintenance of G under section 10 of the Guardianship of Minors Ordinance (Cap.13) (“GMO”) (“Hong Kong proceedings”) against the respondent. The respondent acknowledged service and then commenced proceedings on the Mainland, seeking both custody and maintenance for G against the appellant. The respondent then applied for a dismissal of the Hong Kong proceedings on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction, or alternatively, to stay the Hong Kong proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens. 3. The respondent’s application was dismissed by Deputy Judge Wong (“Judge”), who was of the view that the court did have jurisdiction. On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the respondent’s appeal and stayed the proceedings. The Court of Appeal was prepared to proceed on the basis that the court had jurisdiction, but held that the court below should have declined to exercise its jurisdiction. The appellant appealed to this Court. 4. Four questions arose on this appeal: First, does the Court have jurisdiction to entertain applications under the GMO in respect of a child who is neither ordinarily resident nor present in Hong Kong? Secondly, if such jurisdiction exists, does the Court have a discretion to decline jurisdiction other than on forum non conveniens principles? Thirdly, if it has such a discretion, what are the criteria to be considered in deciding whether jurisdiction should be declined? Fourthly, if the appellant succeeds in establishing jurisdiction under the GMO or inherent jurisdiction, whether the Judge’s dismissal of the respondent’s forum non conveniens stay application stands? 5. In relation to the first question, the majority of the Court held that jurisdiction was established as of right when the respondent was duly served and acknowledged service within the jurisdiction. On the true construction of the GMO, the fact that the minor in respect of whom the maintenance order is sought is not ordinarily resident or physically present in Hong Kong would not preclude the Court from making an order for maintenance. Tang PJ whilst agreeing that, as the Court of Appeal had assumed, the court had jurisdiction, held that the Court of Appeal was wrong to have concluded that the Judge ought to have declined jurisdiction. He also held that had the appellant and the respondent been married when G was born, the court would have had jurisdiction to make an order for maintenance under the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance (Cap.192); the Court should not decline to exercise its statutory jurisdiction under section 10 of the GMO for a child of an unmarried couple where it would make an order in favour of a child of a married couple. 6. On the second question, the Court held that in the context of this case, the court did not have a discretion to decline jurisdiction other than on forum non conveniens principles. The third question thus did not arise and was not addressed by the Court. 7. Finally, as to the fourth question, the Court held that there was nothing before the Court to cast doubt on the correctness of the Judge’s decision to dismiss the respondent’s application. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and restored the Judge’s order.