NAYUDU, J.: This reference is made by the District Judge, Cachar at Silchar, before whom the guardianship proceedings were insti­tuted and are pending. The learned District Judge points out that the petitioner before him in the petition which was filed under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act (Act 8 of 1890), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', is the mother of the two minor children. The petition was opposed before the learned District Judge, Silchar, by the father of the minors. It would appear from the reference that Misc. Case No. 29 of 1961 was before the Additional District Judge's Court, Lower Assam Districts at Gauhati, for the same relief, namely the appointment of a guardian of the person of the minors. This reference was accordingly made under Sec­tion 14 of the Act. (2) Mr. Ghose, the learned counsel for the father of the minors, the petitioner before the District Judge at Gauhati, points out that as the proceedings were Instituted by the father earlier, namely 21-3-1960, whereas the pro­ceedings by the mother, in the District Judge's Court at Sil­char, were instituted only on 11-12-1961 and that as the proceedings in the District Judge's Court at Gauhati were instituted much earner, that Court alone should be allowed to proceed with the matter. He also points out that the Additional District Judge's Court at Gauhati, recorded evidence in the case and had made some progress in the matter and that the request of the mother of the minors for having the proceedings trans­ferred to the District Judge's Court at Silchar was rejected by the District Judge, Gauhati. (3) The only point that requires to be considered in this reference is whether the proceedings should be allowed to continue in the District Judge's Court at Siichar or in the Additional District Judge's Court, Gauhati. In this connection, reference is required to be made to Section 9 of the Act, the relevant portion whereof is as follows: "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." (4) it is contended by Mr. 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." (4) it is contended by Mr. Ghose that the expression "ordinarily resides'.' does not mean casual or factual residence of the minors at the time of the application being made, and that normally the residence of the minor should tie taken as the place where the legal guardian is residing. He placed reliance in the cases of Jhala Harpalsinh v. Bai Arunkunvar, AIR 1954 Sau 13; Chandra Kishore v. Smt. Hem-lata Gupta, (S) AIR 1955 All 611 and Ssrada Nayar v. Vayan-kara Amma, AIR 1957 Kerala 158. In AIR 1954 Sau 13, it is held that mere factual resi­dence at a place at the time of the proceeding is not suffi­cient to give jurisdiction to the Court where such residence •happens to be, and that the word 'ordinarily' has been inten­tionally used to bring in considerations of her than that of mere factual residence. In AIR 1955 All 611 , it was held that the words "ordi­narily resides" obviously mean more than temporary residence, even though such residence is spread over a long period. Again, in AIR 1957 Kerala 158, it was held that the expression "where the minor ordinarily resides" appears to have been deliberately used to exclude places to which the minor may be removed at or about the time of the filing of the application for the enforcement of the guardianship and custody of the minor, and that the phrasa "ordinarily resides" indicates ordinary residence even at the time of the presentation of the application under Section 25 of the Act, and that the emphasis is undoubtedly on the minor's ordinary place of residence. (5) In the instant case, it is not disputed that the minors left with their mother to Siichar in the year 1957, and that the minors had been living with their mother ever since in Siichar. The application filed by the father in the District Court at Gauhati was only made on 21-3-1960, as already pointed out. It is, therefore, clear that the minors had j been residing at Siichar for a period of about three years 1 prior to the making of the application. The application filed by the father in the District Court at Gauhati was only made on 21-3-1960, as already pointed out. It is, therefore, clear that the minors had j been residing at Siichar for a period of about three years 1 prior to the making of the application. In the circumstances, we feel that the requirement of Section 9 of ordinary residence is satisfied in the case of Siichar, and it can be held ' without any difficulty that the minors had been residing at Siichar for a substantial period of time prior to the appli­cation made by the father in the District Court* at Gauhati. It is not the case of the father of the minors that the minors were taken away to Siichar for the purpose of avoiding the jurisdiction of the District Court at Gauhati, because the application in the District Court at Gauhati was made, as already pointed out, about three years after the minors had left for Siichar. In the circumstances,, we feel that the only Court which could be said to have jurisdiction according to the language of Section 9 of the Act is the District Court at Siichar. We, therefore, consider that both under law and also in the interests of the minors, the proceedings for the appointment of a guardian 'of their person should go on In the District Court at Siichar, and the proceedings at District Court, Gauhati, should be transferred to the District Court, Siichar, for the further progress and disposal of the matter. (6) The reference is accordingly accepted, but there will be no order as to costs. Reference accepted.