ORDER

1. By this revision preferred under section 115 of CPC the petitioners/non-applicants have challenged the order dated 30.10.2021 passed in MJC No.5/2021 by Iind Additional District Judge, Mahidpur, District-Ujjain whereby their application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the petition filed by the respondent/applicant under section 7/25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (which shall be referred herein after as “the Act, 1890”) has been rejected.

2. The respondent/applicant has filed an application under section 7/25 of the Act, 1956 before the Court below against the petitioners/non-applicants seeking custody of her minor child i.e. non-applicant No.2 namely Aditya Anjana. She has submitted that she and non-applicant No.1 were married on 30.1.2013. Out of their wedlock non-applicant No.2 was born who is presently aged 3 years and is living with non-applicant No.1. On disputes arising between them, on 2.3.2020 non-applicant No.1 asked the applicant to leave the matrimonial home and custody of non-applicant No.2 was refused to be handed over to her. Since the applicant refused to leave, non-applicant No.1 took her in a four wheeler and left her at her parents place and snatched non-applicant No.2 from her who has ever since been residing with him.

3. In her application the applicant has stated that since she is residing at Mahindpur, District-Ujjain the Court at Mahindpur has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application. Upon service of summons upon them the non-applicants entered appearance and filed an application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the application under section 7/25 of the Act, 1956 on the ground that Court at Mahidpur, District-Ujjain has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same.

4. By the impugned order the said application has been rejected by the trial Court by observing that the territorial jurisdiction of the Court shall be where the ward is ordinarily residing and the question as to where the ward was on the date of the alleged incident dated 2.3.2020 when he was allegedly forcibly taken by non-applicant No.1 is a matter of evidence as he has been stated by the applicant to have been with her which has not been denied by non-applicant No.1.

5. Learned counsel for the non-applicants submits that the application filed by the applicant at Mahidpur, District-Ujjain suffers from lack of territorial jurisdiction. The application with respect to guardianship of person of minor can be filed only before the District Court having jurisdiction which is the place where the minor ordinarily resides. The non-applicant No.2 is residing at Tehsil-Depalpur, District-Ujjain hence the Court at Depalpur alone would have the territorial jurisdiction in the matter. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo reported in (2011) 6 SCC 479 wherein it has been laid down that the solitary test for determining the jurisdiction of the Court under section 9 is the “ordinary residence” of the applicant. It has further been held that the use of word “resides” implies something more than a flying visit to, or causal stay at a particular place.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the non-applicants and have perused the record.

7. As per the pleadings made by the applicant in her application under section 7/25 of the Act, 1956, on 2.3.2020 non-applicant No.1 took her and non-applicant No.2 to the house of parents of the applicant and forcibly left her over there. At that time the non-applicant No.2 was with the applicant who was forcibly snatched by non-applicant No.1 and was taken by him to his house and has since then been staying there against his wishes.

8. Section 9 (1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 reads as under :-

“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