F.A.O. No. 5060 of 2009 [ PAGE \* IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No. 5060 of 2009 Date of Decision: April 20th , 2011 Jasbir Singh …..Appellant Vs. Smt.Daljit Kaur and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.J.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate for the respondents. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. Vide impugned order dated September 24, 2009, the Guardian Judge, Amritsar, has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, (for short ‘the Act’) praying for the dismissal of the petition under Section 25 of the Act field by respondent- wife Daljit Kaur before the Guardian Judge at Amritsar. The respondent had filed the application under Section 25 of the Act in District Amritsar for F.A.O. No. 5060 of 2009 [ PAGE \* guardianship of the minor pleading that she is entitled to get the custody of the minor children as the minors are living absolutely neglected life, she being the mother and natural guardian of the minor children. It is mentioned in para 7 of her petition that both the minor children are studying in Indian Heritage School, Village Bungal Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur. When she had gone to meet the minor children at Pathankot, the principal of the school had refused meeting as the school had instructions from the petitioner that nobody including her should be allowed to meet the minor children. The application under Section 25 of the Act does not indicate as to where the children were taken out of the lawful custody of the respondent, though the respondent has mentioned her residential address of Amritsar. The residential address of petitioner is also depicted as that of Amritsar. The application under Section 9 of the Act was dismissed by the Guardian Judge on the ground that the petitioner and the respondents are residents of Amritsar and the children are temporarily studying in the school at Pathankot as such the application under Section 9 of the Act deserves to be dismissed. Sh.Dhaliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the application under Section 9 of the Act should have been allowed as the petition under Section 25 of the Act is maintainable for the welfare of the minor. In case any interim order is to be passed permitting the respondent to have any interim relief, the study of the children will be disturbed as at present they are studying at Pathankot. Reference was made to compromise annexure P-1 dated January 30, 2008 where respondent had F.A.O. No. 5060 of 2009 [ PAGE \* made a statement in the Court on January 30, 2008 to the effect that she resided with the petitioner at Village Wadala Johal, Tehsil and District Amritsar. Out of the wedlock, two male children, namely, Sikandar Singh and Sukhman Singh were born on May 6, 2002 and November 7, 2003. They are in custody of the husband. Due to temperamental differences they could not adjust with each other despite best efforts and could not reconcile the differences. She was living separately from the petitioner w.e.f. December 12, 2006. There were not chances of living together as husband and wife as such they had mutually decided to dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce. She has settled her claim regarding permanent alimony for past, present and future maintenance. The minor children shall remain in the custody of the petitioner and that she will not claim their custody. It appears that the said statement is made under proceedings under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act but the respondent did not appear on July 30, 2008 as such the application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed on July 30, 2008. In view of the said statement Sh.Dhaliwal has submitted that the respondent does not have any right to file petition for custody of the children but in order to harass the petitioner, she has unnecessarily filed a petition at Amritsar whereas such petition should have been filed at Gurdaspur. He has relied upon Mrs. Annie Besant Vs. G.Narayaniah and another, AIR 1914 Privy Council 41, wherein it has been observed that jurisdiction of District Court is under Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act confined to infants ordinarily resident in the district and cannot extend F.A.O. No. 5060 of 2009 [ PAGE \* to infants who had months previously left India with a view to being educated in England and going to the University of Oxford. I have gone through the facts and circumstances of the said case and I am of the opinion that the observation in the said judgment are of not any benefit to the petitioner. There is no dispute that an application under Section 25 of the Act may be made to the Court where the minor ordinarily resides. This Court in Parshant Chanana Vs. Seema alias Priya, AIR 2010 P&H 99 has interpreted the word ‘ordinarily resides’ to mean regular, normal settled home and not temporary or forced stay. It has been held in the said judgment that if the minor children have been by compulsion kept at different places than the house of natural birth, the same cannot be said to be of place where child ‘ordinarily resides’. In the present case both the contesting parties are residing at Amritsar. Admittedly the parties had matrimonial home at Amritsar. The children have been sent to the school with the consent of the parties. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the Guardian Judge at Gurdaspur will only have jurisdiction. The application has rightly been dismissed. I have considered the contention of Mr.Dhaliwal that it will be difficult for the Court to implement any interim orders, if any passed. A Guardian Judge is always at liberty to determine the good for the welfare of the minor child while deciding an application under Section 25 of the Act. No ground is made out for interference. Dismissed. F.A.O. No. 5060 of 2009 [ PAGE \* April 20th , 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE