The welfare and interest of the minor child are paramount in custody disputes, and the jurisdiction of the District Court is based on the minor's ordinary residence.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. A.K. Rath, J. - This is an application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code for transfer of Civil Proceeding No.421 of 2013 from the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar.

2. Opposite party No.1 married the daughter of the petitioner, namely, Anupama Behera on 17.6.2009. Out of their wedlock, a son was born on 26.5.2010. While the matter stood thus, the wife of the opposite party no.1 died on 15.3.2013. Thereafter, the opposite party no.1-husband filed an application under Sections 7 and 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 for custody of the minor child in the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, which is registered as C.P No.421 of 2013. The petitioner, who is the maternal grandmother, has also filed C.P. No.354 of 2013 in the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar for custody of the minor child. With the factual scenario, the instant application for transfer has been filed by the maternal grandmother of the minor child.

3. Heard Mr. Kali Prasanna Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bansidhar Baug, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1.

4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the minor child is in custody of the maternal grand parents after his birth since his mother was working as a judicial officer. Since the minor child is residing at Bhubaneswar, his maternal grandmother filed an application for custody of the minor child at Bhubaneswar. Thus the case be transferred from the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar.

5. Per contra Mr. Baug, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1, submitted that the father is the natural guardian of the minor child. There is no allegation whatsoever against him by the petitioner. Thus there is no need to transfer Civil Proceeding No.421 of 2013 pending in the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar.

6. Learned counsel for both the parties relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Konduparthi Venkateswarlu and others v. Ramavarapu Viroja Nandan and others, 1988 (II) OLR 391. In the said case, the appellants were in custody of the minor child of respondent no.1 after the death of the wife of respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 is a permanent resident of Berhampur in the district of Ganjam. He had married the daughter of appellant no.2. After marriage, they came to Phulbani where they were serving. The minor child had been born out of their wedlock and was also with them at Phulbani. On 21.5.1986, the wife of respondent no.1 fell ill. Thereafter, respondent no.1 took his wife and child to his father-in-law's house at Visakhapatnam and left them there for better treatment. While the matter stood thus, the wife of the respondent no.1 died on 31.5.1986. The minor child who had accompanied his mother remained there at Visakhapatnam. Respondent no.1 approached his in-laws to get back his son, but they refused to handover the child to him. Thereafter, he filed an application for custody of the son under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act before the learned District Judge, Ganjam. Pursuant to issuance of notice, the appellants entered appearance and filed an application with the District Judge as the District Judge, Ganjam had no jurisdiction to entertain the application since the minor child is originally residing at Visakhapatnam and under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, it is the District Judge having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides can entertain an application. The said application of the appellants having been rejected, the matter came up before this Court. The learned Single Judge, on a survey of the decisions of the various High Courts, came to the hold that residence of a minor is a matter of fact. By use of the