The ordinary place of residence of a minor for the purpose of determining jurisdiction under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, is the place where the minor ordinarily resides, ignoring recent removal from that place.

This is the second time that the petitioner has approached this Court for invoking the revisional jurisdiction in respect of a proceeding under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for short, the Act, pending before the learned District Judge, Kamrup, at Gauhati. The dispute relates to guardianship and custody of two minor sons.

2. The opposite party, the mother of the two minor sons filed a petition before the learned District Judge, Kamrup at Gauhati under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 praying for declaration that she is the guardian of her two minor children and also for her appointment as such. She also claimed custody of the children. A preliminary point regarding jurisdiction was raised before the learned District Judge and the learned District Judge by an order dated 22-2-1986 passed in the said proceeding, which was registered as Misc. Case No. G.C. 252 of 1985 held that he had jurisdiction to try the proceeding. Against the said order, this Court was approached and by judgement and order dated 10-4-1986 passed in Civil Revision No. 75 of 1986, the Court remanded the proceeding to the learned District Judge for reconsideration where the minors ordinarily resides in the light of the observations made in the judgement. The proceeding was transferred to the Court of the Additional District Judge and the learned Additional District Judge reconsidered the matter in view of the observation made by this Court and by the impugned order dated 11-6-86 held that it has jurisdiction to try the present dispute and hence the present proceeding.

3. There is no dispute that the petitioner is the husband of the opposite party and their marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites in the year 1975 and out of their lawful wedlock the two sons were born. It is also not disputed that in July, 1984 the petitioner left the opposite party and at that time two minor children were with their mother and that on 23-6-85 the petitioner took away the two children, who at that time were residing in the Hostel of the Little Star Chatrabash, Digboi to Calcutta and at present the said minor sons are residing at Calcutta. The present petition was filed immediately thereafter i.e. on 29-8-85 before the learned District Judge, Gauhati.

4. Sub-Sec. (1) of S.9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 runs as follows :-

"(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."

5. The present dispute revolves round the expression where minor ordinarily resides occurring in said Sub-S.(1) of S.9. Before entering into the merits of the present petition, it would be convenient to discuss the law regarding jurisdiction of the District Court with reference to the said expression where minor ordinarily resides.

6. A catena of authorities have been placed before this Court wherein the said expression was dealt with.

7. In Mst. Firoza Begum v. Akhtaruddin Laskar, AIR 1963 Assam 193, a Division Bench of this Court considered the said Sub-Section. In that case two petitions were filed, one before the learned District Judge, Cachar at Silschar and another before the learned Additional District Judge, Gauhati and the minors were living with their mother at Cachar. This Court held that as the minors had been residing at Silchar for about 3 years, the learned District Judge, Silchar had jurisdiction as the requirement of S.9 of ordinary residence was satisfied. In Chimanlal Ganpat v. Rajaram Maganchand Oswal, AIR 1937 Bom 158, it was held that under the aforesaid Act, in order to give the Court jurisdiction the minor must be ordinarily resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. The same view was expressed in Sarada Nayar v. Vayankara Amma, AIR 1957 Ker 158. However, the Court further held that such a place of residence has to be determined by finding out as to where the minor was ordinarily residing and wher