THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY F.C.A. No. 220 of 2009 Date: 14.9.2009 Between: Athaluri Venkateswara Rao ..... APPELLANT AND Late D. Narasimha Rao and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY F.C.A. No. 220 of 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.V. Seethapathy) This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.5.2009 in I.A. No. 369 of 2009 in G.W.O.P. No. 448 of 2006 on the file of the Family Court- cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Court, Vijayawada, whereby the petition filed by respondents herein in I.A. No. 369 of 2009 seeking rejection of the main petition on the ground of want of jurisdiction, was allowed. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. The respondents, who are stated to be the maternal grand parents of the ward/minor boy have filed I.A. No. 369 of 2009 claiming that the petition filed by the appellant herein under Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (for short ‘the Act’) be rejected as the Court at Vijayawada has no jurisdiction as the boy was admittedly residing at Kothagudem. The appellant herein is the petitioner before the Family Court. He is the father of the ward. The mother of the ward by name, Sri Latha, who is the daughter of the respondents herein, is stated to be no more. The respondents herein, who are maternal grand parents of the ward pleaded that they have adopted the boy after the death of their daughter and the appellant is disputing the adoption on the ground that there is no physical act of giving and taking of the boy in adoption. Meanwhile, the respondent herein has sought rejection of the main O.P. on the ground that the Court at Vijayawada has no jurisdiction. It is not disputed that the minor boy is residing at Kothagudem along with the respondents, who are the maternal grand parents. It is apt to extract here Section 9(1) of the Act, which reads thus: “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.” The aforesaid provision makes it very clear that the Court at whose jurisdiction the ward is residing alone is having jurisdiction to entertain the application under the said Act. The learned Judge, Family Court on proper appreciation of the legal position has rightly held that the Court at Vijayawada has no jurisdiction as the boy is admittedly residing at Kothagudem. The impugned order is passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada allowing the application filed by the 1st respondent herein and holding that the Court at Vijayawada has no jurisdiction to entertain the main O.P., which was filed seeking custody of the minor child. The order of the learned Judge, Family Court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. We feel that there are absolutely no merits in the present appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. It is however open to the appellant herein to take return of the main O.P. and present the same in appropriate Court having the jurisdiction. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 14th September, 2009 ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J pnb