S.K. MAL LODHA, J.—This appeal under section 47(b) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (No. VIII of 1890) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated September 18, 1978 by which she dismissed his application under S.25 of the Act. It may be stated here that the learned counsel for the father (applicant before the Disrict Judge) stated before her that it is not necessary to return the application for presentation to the proper court as another application will be submitted in the court at Bharatpur if the father-applicant so likes. The appellant submitted an application under S. 25 of the Act against the respondent for return of the minor son of the parties who had completed seven years in March 1978, to his custody. In para 4 of the application, it was mentioned that the minor, at the time of its presentation, was living with his mother at Bharatpur It was also admitted by the learned counsel for the father-applicant before the learned District Judge that after 1974, the minor has resided and has been residing at Bharatpur and that for two months, he remained at the house of the parents of the mother. This application under section 25 of the Act was submitted in the court at Jodhpur. An objection was raised that in view of the averments made by the father-applicant in the application, it is clear that the minor ordinarily resides within the jurisdiction of the District Judge at Bharatpur, and therefore, the learned District Judge at Jodhpur cannot entertain and decide the application. This objection prevailed with the learned District Judge, Jodhpur and she held that the Court of the District Judge at Jodhpur has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. In these circumstances, she dismissed the application of the father applicant by her order dated September 18, 1978. The father applicant has preferred this appeal.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at some length. His only contention is that the principle where the minor ordinarily resides which is mentioned in section 9 of the Act, is not applicable to the applications which are filed under section 25 of the Act. I have given my most anxious and thoughtful consideration to the contention raised and have reached the conclusion that it is devoid of force. I may reproduce here section 25(1) of the Act, which is material for the disposal of this appeal,—

"25. (1) If a ward leaves or is removed from the custody of a guardian of his person, the Court, if it is of opinion that it will be for the welfare of the ward to return to the custody of the guardian, may make an order for his return.............."

Section 4(5) of the Act defines the Court to mean,—

"a) the District Court having jurisdiction to entertain an application under this Act for an order appointing or declaring a person to be a guardian;."

Section 25 (1) uses the expression the Court. This expression has been defined in section 4(5) (a) to mean the Disirict Court having jurisdiction to entertain an application under the Act for an order appointing or declaring a person to be a guardian Section 9 deals with the appointment of guardian of the person and property of the minor. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of S. 9 of the Act run as under,—

"(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."

It is, therefore, clear that an application with respect to the guardianship of the person of the minor has to be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides. The test, therefore, which the L

Click Here to Read the rest of this document