ORDER : - This is a revision which has been filed by Sri Chandra Kishore and Sri Sohan Lal against an order of the District Judge of Saharanpur, exercising jurisdicion over Dehra Dun Area, holding that an application made by Srimati Hemlata Gupta for her appointment as a guardian of her two minor children was maintainable in his Court.

2. Srimati Hemlata, the opposite party, was married to Chandra Kishore some years ago. This marriage produced two children Rakhesh, aged about four and a half years, and Gambhir, aged about two years and a few months. Chandra Kishore belongs to Meerut and has his permanent residence at that place. After the marriage the young couple resided in Meerut, and the children, after their birth, also resided with their parents at Meerut.

Unfortunately, the husband and the wife started having differences, so much so that Hemlata, the wife, decided to leave her husbands residence to go and live with her parents who resided at Dehra Dun. On 1-10-1953, Hemlata, with her two little sons, left Meerut to arrive at Dehra Dun with the object of staying there with her parents.

The departure of Hemlata with her children caused some amount of consternation in the family, with the result that Hemlatas father-in-law came to Dehra Dun and some how was able to return to Meerut with his two grandsons. The father-in-law returned to Meerut with the children on the 2nd, namely the same day that he had gone to Dehra Dun.

On 3-10-1953, Hemlata made the application which has given rise to this revision, for being appointed guardian of the person of her two minor children, in the court of the District Judge of Saharanpur at Dehra Dun. Her allegation in the application was that she had been deprived of her children by her father-in-law by practising fraud on her.

The application was contested by the husband and the father-in-law. We are not here concerned with all the grounds on which contest was made but with only one such ground. The ground which we are concerned in this revision is the plea of jurisdiction that was raised on behalf of the two applicants. It was contested that the Court in Dehra Dun had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. This plea was raised on the strength of S.9, Guardians and Wards Act. The material portion of S.9, sub-s. (1), is in these words:

"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."

It was contended on behalf of the applicants that the minor did not "ordinarily reside within the jurisdiction of the Dehra Dun Court. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the Dehra Dun Court had jurisdiction. His view was that children of such tender age as the two minors in the present case must be taken to be living with their mother, and since the mother was residing, or had the intention of residing, permanently henceforward, at Dehra Dun, the minors would also be deemed to be having their ordinary residence at Dehra Dun. The learned District Judge found support for his view from the observations made by this Court in the case of - Ram Sarup v. Chimman Lal, AIR 1952 All 79(A).

3. In order to have jurisdiction the Court must find that the minor in respect of whom the application for guardianship is made "ordinarily resides" within the jurisdiction of the Court. The question, therefore, is what the words "ordinarily resides" signify. These words have been the subject-matter of judicial interpretation. The words "ordinarily resides" obviously mean more than temporary residence, even though such residence is spread over a long period.

In the case of people who are sui juris, the difficulty in applying these words is considerably minimised because the person in respect of whom the question of residence may arise can give evidence to say where he actually ordinarily resides. There may be evidence of his doing work in a particular place; there may be evidenc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document