1. Petitioners are original non-applicants in Civil M.A. No.59/2013, pending before District Judge, Dhule. I will refer to them as non-applicants, the way they have been arrayed in the Civil Misc. Application. Present respondents – original applicants have filed the Misc. Application seeking declaration of guardianship and custody of minor Jatin Suresh Sharma, original respondent No.5. I will refer to the minor as Jatin. Original applicant Shakuntalabai is grandmother and original applicant Rakesh and Naresh are the uncles of the minor Jatin. Non-applicant No.1 Ramnivas and respondent No.2 Santrabai are the parents of non-applicant No.4 Anita, the mother of minor Jatin. Non-applicant No.4 Mahendra is the brother of Anita. The applicants have sought declaration that they are the guardians of minor Jatin and sought his custody in the original application before the District Judge. Non-applicant No.4 mother Anita filed application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (Act in brief), claiming that, under Section 9 of the Act, the jurisdiction lies with the District Judge of area where the ward resides. She claimed that, for last seven years minor Jatin was residing with her at Indore, District Indore (Madhya Pradesh) as she and the minor had been forced to go by the applicants and as she has no other means. Thus, she claimed that the Court at Dhule did not have jurisdiction. District Judge-1, heard the parties and framed preliminary issue whether non-applicant No.4 (i.e. mother Anita) proved that the District Court at Dhule had no jurisdiction to entertain the main application. The District Judge gave opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Anita recorded her oral evidence. District Judge heard the arguments and recording reasons, came to the conclusion that the ordinary place of residence of the minor Jatin was Shirpur in Dhule district and thus, held that the Court had jurisdiction.

2. The revision petitioners – original non-applicants have filed this revision challenging the said order dated 7.11.2014. It is claimed and also argued that the question was not whether Indore had jurisdiction but the question was whether jurisdiction lay at Dhule; the pleadings of the original applicants itself showed that the minor was residing with his grandparents at Indore and thus, it was clear that there was no jurisdiction at Dhule; the District Court wrongly read the evidence to hold that Anita was residing at Nashirabad, District Ajmer in Rajasthan and not at Indore and that the impugned orders passed were not legally maintainable. The learned counsel submitted that, the petitioners did not spell out that minor was residing in the jurisdiction at Dhule. On the day when the petition was filed, admittedly the minor was residing at Indore. According to him, the ordinary place of the minor would be where his mother was residing.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for original applicants submitted that Anita was married to Suresh Sharma, the son of applicant No.1 Shakuntalabai and Jatin was born out of the wedlock at Shirpur and he was taking education at Shirpur. Suresh Sharma died in accident on 29.12.2008. Anita re-married with one Gaurao Sharma and has gone to reside at Nashirabad, District Ajmer in Rajasthan and according to the counsel, the minor Jatin was taken along by her, stating that they were going for vacation and she left Jatin at the place of her parents and thereafter the minor had not been allowed to come back. Even his School Leaving Certificate was not taken from Shirpur and in an unlawful manner, the minor was got admitted in a school at Indore. The counsel submitted that, there was evidence to show that there was arrangement between Anita and her new husband wherein she had agreed that the minor will not stay with them. Thus, according to him, the child has been taken away wrongly from ordinary place of residence and the Court a