1. This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the learned III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, who, by the impugned order has held that he has jurisdiction to decide the case.

2. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnised according to the Hindu rites and customs on 24.04.1994. The marriage having consummated, the first child Aditi, was born on 05.06.1998 and the second child Vidushi, was born on 17.09.2003. Misunderstanding having arisen between the spouses, they are living separately from 2010. The petitioner is residing at Lakshmi Estate, Polibetta P.O., South Coorg-571215 and the respondent is residing atNo.22/2, Alfred Street, Richmond Town, Bangalore - 560025.

3. Writ Petition (HC) No.114/2012 filed by the respondent against the petitioner and two others, to issue a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, directing the petitioner to cause the production of the person of detenu viz. Vidushi, aged about 8 years 9 months, before the Court and handover the detenu to her legal custody having been taken up and the petitioner having been directed to appear before Court on 25u07.2012 along with Vidushi, after questioning the child, the matter was adjourned to 14.08.2012 and on the said day the writ petition was disposed of with an observation that it is a matter within the domain of the Family Court which should look into all the aspects of the matter, if so advised, for seeking custody of the child.

4. On 02.08.2012, the respondent filed G&WC.No.163/2012, under Ss.7 and 17 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (for short 'the Act') read with S.6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, in the Family Court at Bangalore, against the petitioner, to pass a decree, declaring and appointing her as the legal guardian of the two minor children and grant her the permanent custody by restraining permanently the petitioner from removing the custody of Aditi and by a mandatory injunction to handover to her custody Vidushi and for grant of consequential reliefs. Petitioner filed the statement of objections and opposed the claim of the respondent for custody of the children.

5. Respondent filed an I.A.No.3 in G&WC. No. 163/2012, to pass an ad-interim order of mandatory injunction, directing the petitioner to handover the custody of Vidushi. Though the petitioner filed statement of objections and opposed the prayer in I.A.No.3, the Trial Judge by an order dated 18.01.2013 held that keeping in view the welfare and interest of the minor and having arrived at the conclusion that it is just and proper to give the custody to the mother, ordered that child shall live with the mother, subject to final order that may be passed. However, the petitioner was granted visitation rights. W.P.No.3375/2013 filed against the said order by the petitioner, having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances was dismissed on 28.01.2013. SLP No.8784/2013 filed by the petitioner against the said orders was rejected on 20.02-2013.

6. Petitioner filed I.A.No.6 in G&WC.No.163/2012, under S.9 of the Act, seeking to dismiss the petition as not maintainable, on the ground that he being ordinarily residing and carrying on business in Coorg and Vidushi being also residing with him and attending the School in Cooig, any application under S.9 has to be made to the District Court at Coorg and the Family Court at Bangalore has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the case. Statement of objections having been filed to I.A.No.6 and upon hearing the parties, the Trial Judge finding that the father had removed the younger child Vidushi from where she was ordinarily residing since two years with her mother and without the knowledge and consent of the mother had got the child admitted to Coorg Public School and hence, the minor's ordinary place of residence cannot be said to be Coorg, merely because she was residing at Coorg on the date petition was filed, furthermore, since the temporary and illegal removal of