The ordinary place of residence of a minor for the purpose of Section 9 (1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is a pure question of fact.

1. THIS Rule involves a question of jurisdiction. An application was made before the learned District Judge, Alipore, by a mother for being appointed the guardian of her minor daughter. The father, the petitioner before us, was the respondent in the original court. It was contended before the learned District judge, as it is being contended before us, that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application.

2. THE facts of the case are not substantially in dispute. The petitioner as also the respondent were originally residents of Assam. In 1956 they got married and soon thereafter, migrated to Calcutta. In May 1963 the minor was born within the jurisdiction of the District Court of Alipore. It appears that in March 1966 the parties set up their matrimonial home at premises No. 15/1 Hindustan Road, within the same jurisdiction. The minor was living with her parents until March 1972 when she was sent to St. Helen's convent, Kurseong, for her education. She spent her holidays at home with her parents. There is no dispute that until the time she left for Kurseong, she was residing at 15/1 Hindustan Road. In fact, she attended South Point school, a school in the vicinity of Hindustan Road which she left in 1972 far st. Helen's Convent. At that time the relation between the petitioner and the respondent was undergoing considerable strain. It is the mother's case that the minor had to be sent to kurseong because the atmosphere a home had become too oppressive for her. Sometime in February 1974 the respondent left the Hindustan Road premises temporarily and went to stay with her sister at 15c Swinhoe Street, not far from her home, within the jurisdiction of the Alipore Court. A that time the minor was on her holiday and was living with her parents. The respondent took her to her sister's home. Soon thereafter, they returned home and the minor left for Kurseong when her school reopened.

On February 19, 1974 the respondent made an application in the count of the District Judge at Alipore for being appointed guardian of the minor. Relation between the parties further deteriorated with the result that the respondent left the matrimonial home on 16th April, 1974. Thereafter, the respondent discovered that the petitioner had brought the minor from kurseong without her knowledge, tock her to Gauhati where the petitioner's parents lived and had her admitted into St. Mary's Convent Gauhati thereupon, on 10th May, 1974 the respondent made an application before the learned District Judge for ah order for production of the minor. By an order made on the same date the learned District Judge directed the petitioner to produce the minor in court on 20th May, 1974.

3. THE petitioner states that he was not served with any notice of the application made on the 19th February, 1974 or of the application for production of the minor. His case is that he came to know of these proceedings from the landlord's son who resided in the same premises. Thereupon, he made two applications on 20th May, 1974, one for fixing a date for filing objection to the main petition find the other for an order that the case be heard on the point of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. The learned District Judge directed hearing on May 21, 1974 on the question of jurisdiction only. The case was heard on the appointed date and the preliminary issue was disposed of by an order holding that the court had jurisdiction to hear the application. Against that order, the petitioner who was the respondent before the original court has come up on revision before us.

4. THE relevant provisions in the guardians and Wards Act relating to jurisdiction to entertain applications with respect to the guardianship of the person of a minor, may be set out :

"sec. 9 (1) If the application is with respect to the guardianship of the person of the minor, it shall be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides. The question therefore arises