( 1 ) RULE returnable today. Learned Advocate Mr. R. S. Sanjanwala appears for and waives service on behalf of the respondent.

( 2 ) THE present Revision Application arises from the order dated 16/05/1992 made by the learned Assistant Judge, Valsad, below application Exh. 14 in Guardianship Application no. 13/1991. The petitioner before this Court is the father of the minor child, and the opponent in the said Application no. 13/1991.

( 3 ) THE petitioner herein is residing at Dadra in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The respondent herein, the applicant in the Application no. 13/1991 (hereinafter referred to as the applicant), is the wife of the petitioner. The dispute is as regards the guardianship of the minor child ` Roshni .

( 4 ) THE petitioner a resident of Dadra, and the applicant a resident of Umargaon, District Valsad, were married in the year 1980. The minor child `roshni was born in the month of December, 1989 at Umargaon. After her birth, the applicant alongwith the minor child `roshni went to Dadra to reside with her husband-the father of the minor child `roshni. However, soon thereafter, they were estranged. The applicant left her matrimonial house and went back to reside with her parents at Umargaon. The minor child `roshni remained in the custody of her father at Dadra.

( 5 ) THE applicant moved the above referred Guardianship Application no. 13/1991 under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), in the District Court, Valsad. The applicant claimed that after she went at her matrimonial house alongwith the child `roshni, she was ill-treated by her husband and his family members. She was driven out of her house at Dadra and was compelled to go to reside with her parents at Umargaon. She was not allowed to take the child `roshni alongwith her. Thus, she was forcibly deprived of the custody of the child `roshni. She prayed that she be given the custody of the child `roshni. Pending the said Application no. 13/1991, the petitioner-opponent, moved application Exh. 14. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the District Judge, Valsad to entertain the said application and prayed for decision on the issue as a preliminary issue. The learned Judge rejected the said Application Exh. 14 under the impugned order dated 1 6/05/1992. The learned Judge was pleased to hold that the ward in question being a child of tender age, her custody was required to be given to the mother. The mother was residing at Umargaon, the ward in question should be deemed to have her ordinary residence at Umargaon, that is, within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court, Valsad. The District Court, Valsad, therefore, had the jurisdiction to entertain the said Application no. 13/1991.

( 6 ) FEELING aggrieved, the petitioner-opponent has preferred the present Revision Application. It would not be out of place to mention here that initially the impugned order was challenged before this Court in Appeal From Order, however, it was held that the Appeal From Order, in the subject matter, was not maintainable. Therefore, the present Revision Application.

( 7 ) MR. Panchal has submitted that the Application no. 13/1991 has been preferred under Section 25 of the Act. Section 9 of the Act requires that such application shall be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides. In the present case, indisputably, the minor `roshni resides with the father at Dadra which is her natural residence also. The minor `roshni therefore, can be said to be ordinarily residing at Dadra which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court, Valsad. The District Court, Valsad, therefore, shall have no jurisdiction to entertain the Application no. 13/1991. Mr. Panchal, in support of his argument, has relied upon the judgments in the matters of SM. VIMALABAI W/o BABURAO KSHIRSAGAR V. BABURAO SHAMRAO KSHIRSAGAR (A. I. R. 1951