Jurisdiction in guardianship cases under the Guardians and Wards Act is determined by the minor's ordinary residence, supporting claims made in the custody petition.

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in G.W.O.P.No.56 of 2021, dated 06.03.2023 on the file of the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli, dismissing the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Section 9 of Guardians and Wards Act.

2. It is not in dispute that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 07.04.2014 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and due to their wedlock, they were blessed with a daughter Anushka and a son Sai koushik. It is evident from the records that there arose some disputes and misunderstanding between the parties and as a result of which, both of them have taken legal proceedings against each other and some of the proceedings are pending.

3. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner/husband has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.1311 of 2019 before the Family Court, Madurai and subsequently, withdrew the same and that he has filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.772 of 2020 before the Family Court, Madurai seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and the same is pending.

4. The respondent/wife has filed the above petition G.W.O.P.No.56 of

2021 for appointing her as guardian for her minor daughter Anushka and for handing over the custody of minor daughter with her and the same is pending on the file of the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli. The revision petitioner/husband, after entering into appearance in the GWOP, has filed the application in I.A.No.2 of 2021 on the file of the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Section 9 of Guardians and Wards Act, seeking orders to reject the main GWOP on the ground that the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case.

5. The respondent/wife has filed a counter statement raising serious objections. The learned Judge of Family Court, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order, dated 06.03.2023, dismissing the said petition. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the husband has preferred the present revision.

6. The main contention of the revision petitioner/husband is that both of them were residing at Bangalore and at that time, the respondent got conceived; that their minor daughter Anushka has been residing throughout from birth till now at Bangalore; that she was studying in Euro Kids Pre School, Bangalore and now she is studying at Junior School, Delhi Public School, Bangalore; that the minor Anushka was born at Bangalore and continues to reside till now in Bangalore and not Tiruchirappalli or Madurai and that therefore, the territorial jurisdiction can only be Bangalore and no other place as per Section 9 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

7. The defence of the respondent/wife is that their daughter is aged below 5 years; that the revision petitioner called the respondent to come to Madurai with their daughter; that the revision petitioner and her relatives had forcibly taken their daughter Anushka from the respondent and locked their house; that the respondent has immediately approached the Police authorities and lodged a complaint and that since there was no action, she was constrained to file the above GWOP seeking custody of her minor daughter.

8. It is the further contention of the respondent that since she was residing with her second child Sai koushik in Trichy and she would not be in a position to attend the Court at Madurai, if GWOP is filed at Family Court, Madurai, she was constrained to file the petition before the Family Court, Trichy and that the Court after satisfying with the version of the respondent, has taken the case on file.

9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Section 9 of Guardians and Wards Act speaks about the Court having jurisdiction to entertain the petition under the said Act. contemplates that the application with respect to the guardianship of the person of the minor, shall be mad