The court's jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act is determined by the minor's ordinary place of residence, not the natural guardian's residence. The minor's actual residence, considering the circumstances under which she resides at a particular place, is crucial in determining her ordinary residence.

AMARESWARI RAMANUJULU NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of an order passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dismissing the application field by the appellant (Petitioner) under S. 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The petitioner is the appellant herein.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner is the husband of the 3rd respondent. They were married some time in the year 1959 and they had a boy and one girl. The girl was born in some time in the year 1962. The parties lived together at Hyderabad. Some time in the year 1967, quarrels started between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the girl (Neeta) was born on 7-5-1962 and she has been studying at the Shiv Dat Raj High School, Lal Bazar, Hyderabad in 4th class in the year 1970. The minor girl Neeta was kidnapped on 2-10-1970 at 12 Noon from the house of the petitioner by the respondents expect respondent No. 3 who is wife and the girl has been concealed after kidnapping all the respondents under the changed name Anita. It was his case that the girl was kept at Nagpur and Tumsar, Bhandara District, Maharashtra state and that on receiving information on 7-5-1975 that the minor girl, had been kidnapped, the petitioner tried to trace the girl, but the respondents concealed her and threatened the petitioner and asked him to go away. Consequently the petitioner got issued a search warrant at both places and the girl was recovered at Tumsar from the custody of the first respondent. It may be noted that the first respondent is the brother-in law of respondent No. 3 who is the wife of the petitioner. Thereafter she was produced by the 1st respondent before the Court of the 5th Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. At that stage, the third respondent filed a petition for handing over of the girl having given her address as house No. 2-1-161/2, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. It is in these circumstances the petitioner filed O. P. No. 195/75, out of which the above appeal arises, in the Court, of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for declaring him to be the natural guardian of the minor and for the custody of the minor girl Neeta. The petitioner has impleaded as many as five persons as respondents, the first respondent being the sisters husband of his wife Suseela who is impleaded as respondent No. 3. Respondents 2 and 5 are brothers of his wife respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 4 is the father of respondent No. 1.

( 3 ) IN the above said O. P. 195/75, respondent No. 3, the wife of the appellant has filed a counter opposing the reliefs prayed for the petitioner. According to her , her marriage with the petitioner took place in the year 1959 at Nagger at her parents house. After the marriage, she came to Hyderabad and started residing with the petitioner as his wife at Charminar where the petitioner owns a house. They had two children , one boy and one girl and they were born in the year 1961 and 1963 respectively. The name of the son is Anil Jaiswal and that of the daughter is Anita Jaiswal; but the family people used to call her as Neeta which is the shorter form of her name. She further states that respondent No. 3 lived with her children till 1967 and that during the period from 1959 to 1967 the petitioner developed hatred towards her and abused her on many occasions and was saying that he would marry another woman. He was ill-treating her and her children and he never cared for their proper boarding and lodging in the year 1967 respondent No. 3 went to her brothers place to attend a function and stayed there for a period of four months. After her return from Nagpur , she found that her husband developed illicit intimacy with a Gujrati lady who was living in the same house. Thereafter the petitioner and his mistress used to harass her and her children and made the life of the 3rd respond

Click Here to Read the rest of this document