The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'ordinary residence' under Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act and its application to determine the jurisdiction of the Court in custody cases.

1. The petitioner has come forward with this revision petition aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2009 passed by the Court below dismissing the I.A.No. 4176 of 2009 in OP No. 1109 of 2009 filed by him.

2. The Original Petition was filed by the respondent herein under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, praying to grant the custody of his minor son Sukresh.3. According to the revision petitioner, he is the father-in-law of the respondent herein. The revision petitioners daughter namely C.N. Shilpa was given in marriage to the respondent herein on 07.11.2003 and out of the wedlock the minor Sukresh, male, was born on 06.04.2005, however, during the child birth, the daughter of the revision petitioner and wife of the respondent herein namely C.N. Shilpa died. After the death of his daughter, the revision petitioner has been bringing up the minor child in Mysore. In fact, the revision petitioner also admitted the minor child in L.K.G. at Vidya Jothi School at Nadanahalli, Banur Road, Mysore where the minor child is presently studying. According to the revision petitioner, the minor child was brought up, from the date of his birth, in Mysore, therefore, if at all, the respondent can seek custody of the child by filing appropriate application before the competent Court at Mysore and the Original Petition filed by the respondent seeking custody of the Minor Child at Madras is not maintainable. Therefore, he filed the application in I.A. No. 4176 of 2009 before the Court below under Section 9 (3) of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 praying to pass an order returning the original petition filed by the respondent herein to be presented before the proper Court having jurisdiction for adjudication of the matter in controversy between the parties hereto. According to the revision petitioner, the court below at Madras has no jurisdiction to entertain the original petition filed by the respondent herein and if the proceedings are allowed to continue at Madras, he will be highly prejudiced. The Court below, without considering the jurisdictional issue, has dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner on erroneous grounds. Therefore, challenging the order of dismissal passed by the court below, the present revision petition has been filed.

4. The respondent has not filed any counter before the court below to the I.A.No. 4176 of 2009 filed by the revision petitioner herein. In the original petition filed for custody of the minor child, the respondent herein would contend that his wife was admitted in the hospital at Mysore but during the child birth, she died after giving birth to the minor child. Immediately after the death of his wife, his mother-in-law requested him to leave the minor child with them and that they would handover the child in the next few months. The respondent also would contend that his mother-in-law also advised to get re-married inasmuch as he lost his wife at a young age. Thereafter, in the month of October 2005, the respondent sought the custody of the child but the revision petitioner and his family promised to handover the child in the month of November 2005. When such a request was renewed by the respondent during November, the revision petitioner and his family requested to return the child during January 2006. During January 2006, the revision petitioner and his family members have informed the respondent to take the child after two years. Under those circumstances, he allowed the minor child to remain in the custody of the revision petitioner and his family. Thereafter, when the respondent approached the revision petitioner to see the child on 21.05.2006, he was not permitted to see the child and he was manhandled. Therefore, he lodged a complaint with the local police, but they have not taken any action. As the respondent was prevented from seeing the child, he issued a notice dated 27.11.2007 to the revision petitioner to handover the custody of the child. A reply was sent b