pe(cid:3)(cid:3)on on the ground that the child – Rehanshi born on 18.05.2019 is ordinarily residing at Jalandhar (Punjab) and therefore, the Court did not have territorial jurisdic(cid:3)on to entertain the pe(cid:3)(cid:3)on.

3.3 However, the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.)/Guardian Judge, Chandigarh rejected the said applica(cid:3)on by way of the impugned order dated 29.05.2024 (Annexure P-1). The reasoning given by Ld. Court is that both father and mother of the child are residing in Chandigarh; that the custody of a child below 05 years of age (especially female child) would naturally lie with the mother and therefore, the deemed custody would be with the mother, even if the actual custody was with the parents of the mother. With this reasoning, the Court held that the Chandigarh Court has the jurisdic(cid:3)on in the ma6er and as such, dismissed the applica(cid:3)on.

4. Assailing the aforesaid order by way of present pe(cid:3)(cid:3)on, it is contended by Ld. Counsel for the pe(cid:3)(cid:3)oners i.e. mother of the child alongwith her parents that as per the own case of the father, the child was residing at Jalandhar ever since 12.06.2021. Learned counsel contends that the said child is pursuing her studies for the last more than 03 years at Jalandhar and therefore, in view of Sec(cid:3)on 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, the ordinary place of residence of the child is Jalandhar and therefore, the Court at Chandigarh do not have the jurisdic(cid:3)on to entertain the pe(cid:3)(cid:3)on. Learned counsel has referred to FAO No.2294 of 2024, titled as “Rajesh v. Komal” , decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 27.08.2024; “J K v. NS”, 2019: DHC: 3125-DB, a decision of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court, besides “Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo” (2011) 6 SC 479.

5. Refu(cid:3)ng the aforesaid conten(cid:3)ons, it is urged by learned counsel for the father of the child, i.e. respondent herein that both the par(cid:3)es, i.e. father as well as mother of the child are residing in Chandigarh; that as per the own conten(cid:3)on of the mother of the child, i.e. pe(cid:3)(cid:3)oner No.1 herein, the child was removed from the custody of her ordinary residence of Chandigarh on 12.06.2021 and therefore, such removal from the ordinary residence of the child will not oust the jurisdic(cid:3)on of the Chandigarh Court. It is also the conten(cid:3)on of learned counsel that par(cid:3)es are under li(cid:3)ga(cid:3)on in numerous cases, all of which are pending before the Chandigarh Courts. With these submissions, he prays for dismissal of the present pe(cid:3)(cid:3)on.

6. I have considered submissions of both the sides and have appraised the record carefully.

7. Sec(cid:3)on 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 reads as under:-

“9. Court having jurisdiction to entertain application (1) If the applica(cid:3)on is with respect to the guardianship of the person of the minor, it shall be made to the District Court having jurisdic(cid:3)on in the place where the minor ordinarily resides (2) If the applica(cid:3)on is with respect to the guardianship of the property of the minor, it may be made either to the District Court having jurisdic(cid:3)on in the place where the minor ordinarily resides or to a District Court having jurisdic(cid:3)on in a place where he has property.

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

8. Sec(cid:3)on 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 reads as under:-

“6. Natural guardians of a Hindu minor.—

The natural guardian of a Hindu minor, in respect of the minor’s person as well as in respect of the minor’s property (excluding his or her undivide