R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.

1. The solitary test for determining jurisdiction of the court to entertain an application for guardianship of the person of the minor is the 'ordinary residence' of the minor (Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo: AIR 2011 SC 1952).

2. Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') provides that if the application is with respect to 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.

3. What is meant by the expression “the place where the minor ordinarily resides” in Section 9(1) of the Act? Does

4. Now, the facts in brief: The appellant is the mother and the respondent is the father of a girl now aged six years.

On 05.04.2017, when the girl was aged 4½ years old, the mother filed O.P.No.196 of 2017 in the Family Court, Ottappalam for granting her the custody of the child. The respondent entered appearance in the case. He filed an application as I.A.No.1310/2017 praying that the question of jurisdiction of the court to try the case may be decided as a preliminary issue. He contended that the minor child is residing with him in his house at Neyyattinkara and that the child was studying in a school near his house and therefore, the Family Court, Ottapalam had no jurisdiction to try the case. The appellant filed objection to the application I.A.No.1310/2017. As per the order dated 20.09.2017, the Family Court, Ottapalam found that the child was ordinarily residing in Neyyattinkara and not within its jurisdiction and therefore, it has no jurisdiction to try the case in view of Section 9(1) of the Act. The court below ordered that the original petition filed by the appellant shall be returned to her for filing in the court having jurisdiction. The aforesaid order is challenged in this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent.

6. We have already adverted to the provision contained in Section 9(1) of the Act. As held by the Apex Court in Ruchi Majoo (supra), the solitary test for determining jurisdiction of the court to entertain an application for guardianship of the person of the minor is the place of ordinary residence of the minor. Challenge to the jurisdiction of the court will have to be tested in the context of the averments made in the pleadings of the parties.

7. In the instant case, briefly stated, pleadings of the appellant in the original petition filed by her in the Family Court, are as follows: The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 10.07.2011 at Guruvayoor. A girl child was born to them on 07.07.2012. The appellant was subjected to physical as well as mental cruelty by the respondent. He took her and the child to her house and left them there. While so, on 19.03.2017, the respondent came to her house and forcibly took away the child from her possession. On such allegations, on 05.04.2017, the appellant filed the original petition praying that the respondent may be directed to give her custody of the minor child.

8. During the enquiry in the application I.A.No.1310/2017, no evidence was adduced by the appellant. Exts.A1 to A6 documents were marked on the side of the respondent. On the basis of the 'Adhar Card' issued in the name of the child and her school records and the ration card issued in respect of the family of the respondent, the court below found that the child is studying in a school in Neyyattinkara from 2016 onwards and that she was ordinarily residing in Neyyattinkara at the time of institution of the case.

9. The question as to “ordinary residence” of a minor is always to be decided on the facts and particulars of each case. The expression 'where the minor ordinarily resides' excludes places to which the minor may be removed at or about the time of the filing of the application for the enforcement of the guardianship and custody of the minor. Where the application is filed