1. In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 5.5.2011 passed by the trial Court by which the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. In order to appreciate the petitioner’s challenge to the impugned order, few facts need mention, which are stated infra.

2. The marriage of petitioner No. 1 and the respondent was solemnised on 28.6.1998. From the wedlock, a son and a daughter, respectively were born. The respondent filed a petition under section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) at Chhatarpur on 18.2.2011 for appointment of respondent as guardian of the minor children and for obtaining custody of the children. The petitioners on receipt of notice of the proceeding, filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to ‘CPC’) on the ground that the children are not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Chhatarpur and are studying in boarding school in Chandigarh, therefore, the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the petition. The respondent filed reply to the aforesaid application and opposed the prayer made in the application. It was averred in the reply that the children were taken out from Chhatarpur without her consent.

3. The trial Court vide order dated 5.5.2011 inter alia held that respondent-wife is residing at Chhatarpur and in case there would not have been dispute between petitioner No. 1 and the respondent, the children would have remained at Chhatarpur and, therefore, the children shall be deemed to be the ordinary residents of Chhatarpur and the Court therefore has the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the petition.

4. Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the averments made in the petition filed by respondent No. 1 clearly show that children are not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Chhatarpur, and the children are living in a boarding school at Chandigarh and are prosecuting their studies at Chandigarh and, therefore, the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the petition. It was further submitted that either the Court at Gwalior or the Court at Chandigarh has territorial jurisdiction to deal with the petition and, therefore, the plaint should be returned for presentation to the Court of competent jurisdiction. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Harihar Prasad Jaiswal v. Suresh Jaiswal and others, AIR 1978 AP 13, Shah Harishchand Ratanchand v. Virbbal and others, AIR 1975 Guj. 150, Amal Saha v. Smt. Basana Saha, AIR 1988 Gauhati 22 and decision of the Supreme Court in Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjee Majoo, ¼2011½ 6 SCC 479.

5. On the other hand, leanred counsel for the respondent while opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that infact against the impugned order, the petitioners ought to have filed a civil revision and the writ petititon against the impugned order is not maintainable. It was further submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is perferctly just and legal. It was also submitted that the respondent was deprived of the custody of the minor children by shifting them from the territorial limits of the Court at Chhattarput without her consent, therefore, the Court at Chhatarpur has territorial jurisdiction to deal with the petition. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Vinayak Rao Jadhav and others v. Shweta Vinayak Rao Jadhav, 1997 (1) MPLJ 27 and Johra Bi and others v. Jageshwar and others, 2010 (I) MPLJ 98.

6. I have considered the submissions made on both sides. Section 9 (1) of the Act provides that application with regard to guardianship of the person of the minor