Judgment :- 1. The above civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 11.7.1997 made in I.A.No.1118 of 1996 in guardian O.P.No.41 of 1996 by the Court of District Judge, Pudukottai. 2. The petitioner in the main guardian O.P. is the wife and the respondent therein is the husband. The main guardian O.P. has been filed by the wife under Secs.7 and 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act seeking to appoint her as the guardian of her minor son Gowtham, born through the respondent therein and to direct the respondent therein to handover the custody of the child with the petitioner. 3. During the pendency of the said Guardian O.P. the respondents/husband filed I.A.No.1118 of 1996. Seeking dismissal of the main guardian O.P. filed by the petitioner/wife in G.O.P.No.41 of 1996, since it has been filed abusing the process of the Court of District Judge, Pudukottai, without jurisdiction. 4. It is only against the fair and decretal order passed by the Court of District Judge, Pudukottai, dismissing the said I.A.No.1118 of 1996, the above civil revision petition has come to be filed by the husband, on grounds, such as those averred in the grounds of revision. 5. 4. It is only against the fair and decretal order passed by the Court of District Judge, Pudukottai, dismissing the said I.A.No.1118 of 1996, the above civil revision petition has come to be filed by the husband, on grounds, such as those averred in the grounds of revision. 5. During arguments, Prof.S.Krishnasamy, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, would contend that the jurisdiction of the lower court territorial as well as on facts is in error so far as the maintainability of the main Guardian O.P. is concerned; that the main petition is to appoint the petitioner/wife as the guardian of the minor Gowtham, in the place of the father; that at the outset it has not been spelt out as to how the father, the natural guardian, has become incapacitated to be a guardian of the minor child, so as to make the petitioner to seek for a declaration that she is the guardian to seek for a declaration that she is the guardian of the minor child; that neither the petition nor the counter in the said Interlocutory Application contain anything regarding this pre-condition that is necessary for maintaining an application of that sort; that the last residence of both the petitioner and the respondent along with the child was Hosur in Dharmapuri District; that in June, 1995, when the child was hardly two years and 7 months old, on account of some differences with her husband, that erupted since he did not approve her joining the P.G. course the petitioner left Hosur along with the child and went to her parents abode at Pudukottai and leaving the child with the custody of her parents, she had left for Madras, to join her D.G.O. Course, which was a two year course and was staying at the Women and Child Hospital, EgmoreMadras that in the meantime, for a couple of months from 29.6.1995 to 28.8.1995, the minor child is said to have been attending to a Nursery School at Pudukottai; that on account of some serious illness that the child contracted, such as Primary Complex Penumonia, Anemia etc., since the child was sinking, on receipt of information, the petitioner herein the father went and took the child from the parental house of his wife and got him admitted in a hospital at Madurai and got him fully treated and with prescriptions for follow-up action, he left with the child for Hosur, thus, the child was removed from the residence of the respondent/wifes parents house on 30.8.1995 and there is no question of forcibly taking the child but only for the welfare and well being of the child he was taken; that hardly for a couple of months only, the child was kept at Pudukottai under the custody of the parents of the respondent/wife; that under Sec.6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, mother is given the custody of the child only but not the guardianship, which she cannot claim nor could the same be declared by any court, during the lifetime of the father, provided the father has not become incapacitated and the custody of the minor, who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother; that in the instant case, neither the custody of the minor was with the wife at Pudukottai nor had it been permitted by the natural guardian-father; that the respondent herein had left for her P.G. education by leaving the child at Pudukottai, that the child was virtually kept under the custody of her parents, who are in no way connected with the welfare of the child, especially in the presence of the father; that just for a couple of months, the child had been forcibly kept at Pudukottai in the custody of the respondents parents and therefore, Pudukottai cannot be termed as the ‘ordinary place residence of the child, so as to give jurisdiction to the District Court, Pudukottai to try the main guardian O.P. filed by the respondent herein, since the place of ‘ordinary residence’ of the child is only Hosur. 6. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would briefly contend saying that the point to be determined is whether the guardian O.P. filed by the mother of the child the respondent herein before the District Court, Pudukottai is in order and that whether the said court has jurisdiction to entertain the said guardian O.P.; that Sec.9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act contemplates that, “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. Hence, it is paramount to find out whether Pudukottai is the place, where the minor ordinarily, resides or not, so as to maintain the guardian O.P. in the District Court of Pudukottai. The learned counsel would further contend that the mother wanting to join for her post graduate studies in Gynecology, took the child from Hosur and not only admitted him in a school, but also entrusted the child in the custody of her parents and went to Madras to join her studies and for two months the child receiving its education and at that time in August, 1995, the revision petitioner/father forcibly removed the child for not tangible reason offered to anyone and hence Pudukottai should be taken as the place of ordinary residence of the child, thus, the District Court, Pudukottai got jurisdiction to entertain the Guardian O.P. The learned counsel for the respondent would further point out that, had not the child been removed by the revision petitioner forcibly from Pudukottai, it would have continued to reside at Pudukottai, taking the same as the place of ordinary residence and hence would pray for dismissing the revision petition. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent would also contend that the very revision petition could not lie as against the fair and decretal order passed by the District Court concerned, within the meaning of Sec.115, C.P.C. But, at the same time, the learned counsel for the respondent is not able to satisfy the court with the authorities of law as to how such a revision petition cannot lie before this Court as against the fair and decretal order passed by the lower court. It is a final order passed by the lower court in an Interlocutory Application and there is no doubt that a revision could lie under Sec.115 of the C.P.C. before this Court and hence this legal argument advanced on the part of the learned counsel for the respondent is without basis and the same is hereby rejected. 8. So far as the point of jurisdiction of the District Court, Pudukottai, as raised before the lower court by the revision petitioner herein is concerned, in order to arrive at a firm conclusion, the place of ordinary residence of the minor should be determined. It is an open case, admitted by both, that on their marriage, the revision petitioner and the respondent as well got settled at Hosur in November, 1991, resulting in the minor having been born from out of the said lawful wedlock on 15.12.1992 and the delivery had taken place at Madurai, which is the paternal residential place of the revision petitioner and thereafter both the parties along with the child had left for Hosur and lived there for 2 ½ years and in June, 1995, on her getting admission for the two year Post Graduate Course of Gynecology at Madras, the respondent, taking the child along with her, had gone to Pudukottai and got the minor admitted in a nursery school in the L.K.G. without the knowledge of her husband and put the child under the custody of her parents and left for Madras and joined her P.G. Courses at Madras. It is the case of the revision petitioner that in a couple of months, after the child had been taken from his custody at Hosur, at the close of August, 1995, on reliable information that the child was suffering from serious illness, he rushed to Pudukottai and took the child from the residence of the parents of the respondents on 30.8.1995 and got him treated at Madurai for certain diseases and after a week, he returned back to Hosur along with the child in the early September, 1995 and got the child admitted in the school and the child is now doing the second standard at Hosur and the child is not only a healthy child but also a brilliant student of the school. 9. 9. It is a case, where nothing is revealed as to why the respondent should take the child away from the custody of her husband, when she got admission for P.G. Course, from her marital home and entrusting the child with her parents at Hosur, should join her P.G. Course at Madras or the circumstances leading to file the Guardian O.P.No.41 of 1996 10 months later. But, a hint is available from the guardian petition that the revision petitioner did not favour the respondent joining her P.G. course, which has led to the respondent leaving Hosur along with the minor child and entrusting the child with the custody of her parents at Pudukottai she left for madras to do her P.G. Course. It is not the case that the respondent stayed with the child at Pudukottai, even for certain days, since she had gone immediately, and joined her P.G. Course at Madras. Hence, it should be held at the outset that the minor got separated from his natural guardian/father by the mother and got entrusted with the custody of the parents of the respondent and from the time that the child had been taken to Pudukottai for two months, till it got removed from there by the revision petitioner on 30.8.1995, the child was in the custody of on 30.8.1995, the child was in the custody of the parents of the respondent and not the respondent at all. Now, the big question that is to be solved is whether, under such circumstances, the natural guardian/father or the parents of the mother of the minor should be held as the proper persons in whose custody the child should be placed and under such circumstances, whether the place (Hosur), where in both the parents of the minor and the minor himself resided for 2 ½ years, since Hosur being the last place of residence of all, should be taken as the ordinary place of residence of the minor or the other place (Pudukottai), wherein the minor is entrusted with the custody of the parents of the respondent by the respondent and wherein for a couple of months, the child is said to have been kept and put up in a school by the parents of the respondent, should be taken as the place of ordinary residence of the child, especially when the respondent/mother was not present at Pudukottai and takes up her residence at Madras to do her P.G. coursee 10. It is already decided by many judicial pronouncements that the place, where the child takes its education cannot be held to be the place of its “ordinary residence’ nor could it be held that since minor had been placed under custody of the parents of the mother for a couple of months, that place, could be presumed or deemed to be the place of ordinary residence of the child as it has been wrongly concluded by the lower court. In all probabilities having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is only Hosur, wherein the minor, right from his early youth till it attained the age of 2 ½ years, had been brought up by both the revision petitioner and the respondent and where the natural guardian/ father works for gain and still resides and takes care of the child, should be held the place of ordinary residence of the minor and not Pudukottai wherein artficially the child had been entrusted with the custody of the parents of the respondents and is said to have been put in a school for L.K.G. 11. The lower court discussing the facts of the case, has arrived at the conclusion in para No.8 of its fair order, ‘deeming the minor to be in the custody of the mother at Pudukottai. The lower court discussing the facts of the case, has arrived at the conclusion in para No.8 of its fair order, ‘deeming the minor to be in the custody of the mother at Pudukottai. In spite of having admitted that the mother was at Madras and that the District Court, Pudukottai has got jurisdiction to entertain and try the Guardian O.P. and then would start discussing about the judicial pronouncements and the meaning of the term ‘ordinarily resides’, which is nothing short of adopting the policy ‘play the Game and Frame the Rules ‘ i.e., first arriving at the conclusion without application of mind, then having the discussion according to the conclusions preliminarily arrived at, which should be discredited. Moreover, even from the meaning given by the lower court for the term ‘ordinarily resides’ it connotes “a regular, normal or settled home and not a temporary or forced one, to which a minor might have been removed either by stealth or by compulsion” and further, “it may be that ordinarily the paternal family house may be taken to be the place of the ordinary residence.” Thus, from the very meaning for the term ordinarily resides’ as quoted by the lower court itself, it would indicate in no uncertain terms that the place of the revision petitioner herein i.e., Hosur is the place of ordinary residence of the minor and definitely not the temporary abode i.e., Pudukottai, wherein the child was placed under the custody of the respondents parents and hence it should have never been concluded that Pudukottai is the place, where the child ordinarily resides, so as to gain jurisdiction to entertain the G.O.P.No.41 of 1996 by the District Court, Pudukottai, Hence, it is hereby ultimately decided that neither the District Court, Pudukottai, has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the guardian O.P.No.41 of 1996, since it is not the place of ordinary residence of the minor for whom the petitioner therein i.e., the respondents herein is sought to be declared the guardian nor could the same be instituted in the said court and so far as the said subject matter is concerned, the District Court, Pudukottai does not have the jurisdiction at all, to entertain the said G.O.P. 12. The fair and decretal order passed by the Lower court suffers from misconception of facts, patent errors of law and perversity in approach, resulting in arriving at the wrong conclusion to dismiss the application filed by the revision petitioner herein questioning the jurisdiction of the District Court, Pudukottai in its entertaining the Guardian O.P.No.41 of 1996, thus calling for interference by this Court. 13. In result, the above civil revision petition is allowed setting aside the fair and decretal order dated 11.7.1997 made in I.A.No.1118 of 1996 in guardian O.P.No.41 of 1996 by the Court of District Judge, Pudukottai. 14. Consequently, C.M.P.No.16871 of 1997 is also dismissed. 15. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.