Antony Dominic, J.

1. In this Original Petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order passed by the Family Court, Vadakara rejecting I.A. No.735/2012 filed by him disputing the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court to entertain O. P. No.112/2012 filed by the respondent.

2. Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife and in their wedlock the respondent had given birth to two minor children. After their marriage in 2005, the couple was residing in Mumbai, where the petitioner is employed in a multi national company. For various reasons, which are alleged in Ext.P1 petition, the details of which are irrelevant for the purpose of this case, in August, 2011 the respondent left the petitioner's house and since then, is residing in her paternal house which is situated within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Vadakara.

3. While so, the respondent filed O.P. No.112/2012 seeking custody of the minor children. It was in that O.P., the petitioner who was respondent therein, filed I.A. No.735/2012 contending that he is an ordinary resident of Mumbai and that the children were born and brought up and are admitted in a school in Mumbai. Therefore, the Family Court, Vadakara has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. I.A. was considered and by Ext.P4 order the Family Court overruled the objection and held that since one of the parents of the minors was a resident of Vadakara, it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. It is this order which is challenged in this petition.

4. Though notice issued in this petition was served on the respondent, she has not chosen to appear or contest the matter.

5. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the contentions raised. Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act provides that if the application is with respect to the guardianship of the minor, it shall be made to the court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides. The "term ordinarily resides" is not defined in the Act. However, this expression has received judicial interpretation on different occasion. The latest judgment of this court on this aspect is the one rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Pramod Vidyandhar Panicker V. Bindu Pramod Panicker, 2013 (1) KLT 332 where in paras 8, 9, 10 and 13 this Court held as follows:-"8. We have given our anxious consideration into the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act confers jurisdiction to deal with matters pertaining to guardianship and custody of the children only on that court within whose territorial limits the child ordinarily resides. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jeewanti v.Kishan Chandra (cited supra) dealing with the concept of 'residence' within the meaning of Section 19 clause (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, held that in order to give jurisdiction on the ground of 'residence' something more than a temporary stay is required. It must be more or less of a permanent character, and of such a nature that the court in which the respondent is sued, is his natural forum. Stating that the word 'reside' is by no means free from all ambiguity and is capable of a variety of meanings according to the circumstances to which it is made applicable and the context in which it is found, their Lordships go on to say that in the ordinary sense 'residence' is more or less of a permanent character. The expression 'resides' means to make an abode for a considerable time: to dwell permanently or for a length of time: to have a settled abode for a time. Justice K.T.Thomas as a Judge of this court in Chandy v. Mary Neena (cited supra) relied on the above decision of the Supreme Court and in the context of Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act held that the expression "ordinarily resides" connotes a regularly settled home and not a place of study where the children are obliged to dwell by force of circumstances or compulsion of parents employment. A Division B