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 jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides.
If the application is with respect of the guardianship of the property of the minor, it may be made either to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides or to a District Court having jurisdiction in the place where he has property.
If an application with respect to the guardianship of the property of a minor is made to a District Court other than that having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides, the Court may return the application if in its opinion the application would be disposed of more justly on conveniently by any other District Court having jurisdiction.
(i) The expression ’ordinarily resides’ signifies something more than a temporary residence. Even though the period of such temporary residence may be considerable, the place where the minor generally resides and would be expected to reside but for special circumstances may be taken to be the place denoting a place where the minor ordinarily resides; Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Vimla Gupta, AIR 2003 All 317.
(ii) The words ‘ordinarily resides’ are advisedly used. These words should be given their natural meaning so as to advance the intention of the legislature; Dr. Giovanni Marco Muzzu (in re:), AIR 1983 Bom 242.
(iii) The legislature by the expression ‘ordinarily resides’ meant that it is something more than a temporary resident. A temporary resident at a particular place under compulsion however long cannot be termed as place of ‘ordinarily resides’. The term ‘ordinarily resides’ does not mean casual or factual residence of the minors; K.C. Sashidhar v. Roopa, AIR 1993 Kant 120.
(iv) The words ‘ordinarily resides’ are not identical and do not have the same meaning as “residence at the time of application”. The legislature used the words ‘ordinarily resides’ probably to avoid the mischief like the minor may be secretely removed to some other place and kept at that place under compulsion, the application for custody of minor has to be filed in ordinary place of residence of minor. Residence at the time of application is not decisive of jurisdiction; Konduparthi Venkateswarlu v. Ranavarapu Viroja Nandan, AIR 1989 Ori 151.
(v) When a person leaves his residence for good with no intention of returning and goes to some other place to live, the latter becomes his ordinary place of residence; Dr. Gioranni Marco Muzzu (in re:), AIR 1983 Bom 242.
(vi) It is not the place of residence of the natural guardians that gives jurisdiction to the Court under section 9(1) but it is the place of ordinary residence of the minor; Aparna Banerjee v. Tapan Banerjee, AIR 1986 P&H 113.