The interpretation of the term 'ordinarily resides' as used in the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is crucial in determining the jurisdiction of the court in guardianship matters involving minor children.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Husband is in revision petition against the order dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 10/10A read with Section 151 CPC.

2. Wife had filed a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for grant of custody of minor child namely Devansh Singh Saini, born on 04.11.2014. It was alleged in the petition that the husband and the wife alongwith minor child used to reside at Chandigarh and on 1st August, 2016, the husband took the minor child on the pretext of going to the park and then fled away. The pleadings in para No.5 of the petition are as under:-

“5. That respondent resided with petitioner and their minor child namely Devansh Singh Saini at Chandigarh together w.e.f. 17.07.2016 to 01.08.2016. It is submitted that on 01.08.2016 at about 11:00 AM, the respondent picked up the minor child namely Devansh Singh with from the petitioner on the pretext that they are going to park for walking and will come back within 15-20 minutes. It is submitted that the petitioner waited about one hour and thereafter made telephonic call to respondent, then he did not make any response and thereafter it came to the knowledge of petitioner that the respondent illegally, fraudulently and by misrepresentation taken away the custody of minor child from petitioner and started to reside with her parents at Kalka, District Panchkula. Thereafter the petitioner went to her matrimonial house at Kalka and requested to respondent and his family members either handover the custody of her minor child or allow her to reside with them, but the respondent in connivance with his family members flatly refused to accept both the requests of petitioner and further thrown out her from her matrimonial house and since then petitioner is residing at Chandigarh. It is submitted that custody of minor child taken away by respondent illegally, fraudulently by respondent from House No.2338, Block No.32, Sector 63, Chandigarh.”

3. The respondent-husband filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10/10A read with Section 151 CPC for return of the plaint on the ground that it should be presented before the Competent Court having the jurisdiction over Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula, Haryana.

4. The aforesaid application filed by the husband has been dismissed by the Court while recording as under:-

“9. As the minor is born on 04.11.2014, at present he is below the age of 5 years. Learned counsel for both the parties have agreed and even the statute provides so and it has been settled in Ruchi Majoo's case (supra) and Pooja Bahadur's case (supra) that it shall be made to the District Court having the jurisdiction for the place, where the minor ordinarily resides. Thus, the question comes before the present court that which is the place where the minor ordinarily resides. Certainly, at present, the respondent resides at Chandigarh and even at the time of filing the present petition, the respondent was residing at Chandigarh and the present petition has been filed on 12.09.2016 and the present applicant has filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act against the present respondent and that petition was instituted in the year 2016, which is still pending and a perusal of head note of said petition reveals that the present address mentioned of the applicant and the respondent therein is House No.2338, Block 32, Sector 63, Chandigarh and as per the assertions of respondent Baljit Kaur, the minor was removed from her custody at Chandigarh. Though, it is yet to be decided that whether the minor has been removed from her custody forcibly, but one thing has become crystal clear that till the year 2016, the present applicant used to reside at Sector 63, Chandigarh. Even if, it is considered that subsequently, minor has been shifted to Kalka, even then, ordinarily place of residence of the minor cannot be said to be Kalka, because, till the year 2016, the minor used to reside with her mother at Chandigarh. In view