P.D. Rajan, J.

This original petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the husband of one Shami Shahul seeking a direction to call for the entire records leading to Exhibit P1 and direct the Family Court, Ernakulam to return Exhibit P1 O.P. (Guardian) No. 2007/2014 as it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same and grant such other reliefs, which are just and necessary in the interest of justice. The respondent wife filed O.P. No. 2007/2014 before Family Court, Ernakulam for permanent custody of the children under Section 28 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890.

2. The petitioner here is the father of minor Rishika aged 4 years, who is a permanent resident of Tamil Nadu and now working at Pune, the respondent is his wife who was born and brought up in Chennai and now residing at Ernakulam from 2012 onwards. Petitioner's marriage with the respondent was registered at Bangalore and thereafter, they resided together there till 2011. In the wedlock, two female children were born to them, but on an understanding between them in the year 2011, the petitioner resided along with the younger daughter, Rishika aged 4 years and respondent resided along with the elder daughter, Reesha, aged 6 years separately. The respondent wife filed O.P. No. 2007/2014 before Family Court, Ernakulam for permanent custody of the children under Section 28 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, in which she filed another petition for interim custody of the child. The father of the petitioner, who received notice, appeared before court through counsel and contended that the Family Court, Ernakulam does not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain Ext. P1 petition. Hence this petition.

3. Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act reads as follows:

"9. Court having jurisdiction to entertain application - (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.

(2) If the application is with respect to the guardianship of the property of the minor, it may be made either to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides or to a District Court having jurisdiction in a place where he has property.

(3) If an application with respect to the guardianship of the property of a minor is made to a District Court other than that having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides, the Court may return the application if in its opinion the application would be disposed of more justly or conveniently by any other District Court having jurisdiction".

4. According to Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, when an application with respect to guardianship of a minor is concerned, it shall be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides. Therefore the application with respect to the guardianship must be presented within the jurisdiction of the court where the minor ordinarily resides. It means that Section 9(1) signifies dwelling in a place for some continuous period. "Ordinarily resides" therefore has the meaning to something more than a temporary residence. A close analysis of Section 9(1) explains that the period of such temporary or short residence has some difference with the place where the minor generally resides, which would be residing under special circumstances for a short period than the place where the minor ordinarily resides.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the permanent address and residence of the petitioner is at Vellore and the younger child is with him from 26.11.2011. The younger child has never been at Kerala, even according to the respondent, except in the last paragraph mentioned in Ext. P1 for a cause of action, that too, a single line for creating illusory jurisdiction. She is admitted in a school by name, Hakkuna Mathatha at Pune which i