Hon’ble S.K. Gupta, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 7-12-2004 and 29-1-2005 passed by Additional District Judge (Special Judge, EC Act) Ghaziabad in Misc. Case No. 222 of 2002, Fateh Chand Sharma and another v. Smt. Rajni Sharma and others under Section 7/25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

2. The brief facts as enumerated in the affidavit filed in support of stay application by the revisionists are as follows :

3. Smt. Rajnish Sharma, revisionist No. 1 got married to one Arvind Kumar Sharma on 4-12-1998 and out of the said wedlock a male child namely Anshuman was born. Arvind Kumar Sharma husband of Smt. Rajni Sharma expired on 23-7-2002. After the death of her husband, it is alleged that opposite parties (father and mother-in-law of Rajni Sharma) made her life so miserable that she had to seek shelter in her parents’ house at Lucknow. It is further alleged that respondents grabbed her Stri Dhan and all other properties to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs and she was also tortured by them. As such, Smt. Rajni Sharma left her parental home on 13-9-2002 alongwith her only minor son and settled down at Lucknow and since 13-9-2002 she is staying at Lucknow along with her minor son.

4. On 23-12-2002 the opposite party No. 1 filed Misc. Case No. 222 of 2002, Fateh Chand Sharma and another v. Smt. Rajni Sharma and others under Section 7/25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Section 13 of Hindu Minority and Guardship Act, 1956 before the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar.

5. An objection was filed by Smt. Rajni Sharma before the said Court stating that in view of Section 9 of the said Act, Petition under Section 7/25 of the Act read with Section 13 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956,filed by respondents is not maintainable in district Gautam Budh Nagar, since Anshuman minor son of Smt. Rajni Sharma is ordinarily residing at Lucknow alongwith her mother. The objection of the revisionist No. 1 has been rejected by order dated 7-12-2004 by the Court below. Hence the present revision.

6. Heard Sri Rajiv Kumar Srivastava learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rakesh Pandey learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record as well as the impugned order.

7. Before adjudicating the controversy involved in the matter it would be useful to refer relevant Section 9 of Guardian and Wards Act,1890 :

“9. Court having jurisdiction to entertain application.—(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 actually resides or to a District Court having jurisdiction in a place where he has property.

(3) If an application made with respect to the guardianship of the property of a minor is made to a District Court other than that having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides, the Court may return the application if in its opinion the application would be disposed of more justly or conveniently by any other District Court having jurisdiction.”

8. It is not disputed that Smt. Rajni Sharma was married to Arvind Kumar Sharma on 4-12-1998 and Master Anshuman was born out of the said wedlock. It is also not disputed that Arvind Kumar Sharma expired on 23-7-2002 and thereafter Smt. Rajni Sharma along with her minor son Master Anshuman left Gautam Budh Nagar and settled at Lucknow and since then she is staying at Lucknow alongwith her child and her parents.

9. The only question for consideration before this Court is to determine the place where the minor is ordinarily residing. The application in respect to guardianship of minor is maintainable i