JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.K. Gupta, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 7-12-2004 and 29-1-2005 passed by Additional District Judge (Special Judge, EC Act) Ghaziabad in Misc. Case No. 222 of 2002, Fateh Chand Sharma and another v. Smt. Rajni Sharma and others under Section 7/25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. 2. The brief facts as enumerated in the affidavit filed in support of stay application by the revisionists are as follows : 3. Smt. Rajnish Sharma, revisionist No. 1 got married to one Arvind Kumar Sharma on 4-12-1998 and out of the said wedlock a male child namely Anshuman was born. Arvind Kumar Sharma husband of Smt. Rajni Sharma expired on 23-7-2002. After the death of her husband, it is alleged that opposite parties (father and mother-in-law of Rajni Sharma) made her life so miserable that she had to seek shelter in her parents’ house at Lucknow. It is further alleged that respondents grabbed her Stri Dhan and all other properties to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs and she was also tortured by them. As such, Smt. Rajni Sharma left her parental home on 13-9-2002 alongwith her only minor son and settled down at Lucknow and since 13-9-2002 she is staying at Lucknow along with her minor son. 4. On 23-12-2002 the opposite party No. 1 filed Misc. Case No. 222 of 2002, Fateh Chand Sharma and another v. Smt. Rajni Sharma and others under Section 7/25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Section 13 of Hindu Minority and Guardship Act, 1956 before the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar. 5. An objection was filed by Smt. Rajni Sharma before the said Court stating that in view of Section 9 of the said Act, Petition under Section 7/25 of the Act read with Section 13 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956,filed by respondents is not maintainable in district Gautam Budh Nagar, since Anshuman minor son of Smt. Rajni Sharma is ordinarily residing at Lucknow alongwith her mother. The objection of the revisionist No. 1 has been rejected by order dated 7-12-2004 by the Court below. Hence the present revision. 6. The objection of the revisionist No. 1 has been rejected by order dated 7-12-2004 by the Court below. Hence the present revision. 6. Heard Sri Rajiv Kumar Srivastava learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rakesh Pandey learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record as well as the impugned order. 7. Before adjudicating the controversy involved in the matter it would be useful to refer relevant Section 9 of Guardian and Wards Act,1890 : “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. (2) If the application is with respect to 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 actually resides or to a District Court having jurisdiction in a place where he has property. (3) If an application made 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 or conveniently by any other District Court having jurisdiction.” 8. It is not disputed that Smt. Rajni Sharma was married to Arvind Kumar Sharma on 4-12-1998 and Master Anshuman was born out of the said wedlock. It is also not disputed that Arvind Kumar Sharma expired on 23-7-2002 and thereafter Smt. Rajni Sharma along with her minor son Master Anshuman left Gautam Budh Nagar and settled at Lucknow and since then she is staying at Lucknow alongwith her child and her parents. 9. The only question for consideration before this Court is to determine the place where the minor is ordinarily residing. The application in respect to guardianship of minor is maintainable in the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides. Now the question in the present matter is whether the minor ordinarily resides at Lucknow or at Gautam Budh Nagar. 10. Learned counsel for the revisionists has cited number of authorities in support of his contention. The application in respect to guardianship of minor is maintainable in the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides. Now the question in the present matter is whether the minor ordinarily resides at Lucknow or at Gautam Budh Nagar. 10. Learned counsel for the revisionists has cited number of authorities in support of his contention. In Ram Swaroop v. Chiman Lal, AIR 1952 All 79 this Court has observed in paragraphs 4 and 5 as follows : “4. Admittedly in this case the children are very young and they have been living with their mother. They were no doubt, until their mother left their father, living in Chandausi which is in Moradabad district. It is not disputed that after her departure from Chandausi they have been living with her at Hathras. In these circumstances in this particular case an inevitable conclusion to which I am driven is that their ordinary place of residence is at the moment Hathras. When a person leaves his place, where he has been residing as a permanent resident, for good i.e. with no intention to come back to it and goes to some other place to live there, the former place where he used to live ceases to be his ordinary place of residence. The latter place becomes his ordinary place of residence. The question of residence is largely a question of intention. In the case of minors no question of intention arises. But the Court will take into consideration their actual place of residence at the time of the application and regard that as their ordinary place of residence. 5. I, therefore, hold that inasmuch as the children are living with their mother, their place of residence at the time the application was presented was Hathras.” 11. In Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Dr. Kumari Vimala Gupta, 2003 (51) ALR 390 this Court has observed as under : “19. It has been urged that the expression “ordinarily resides” as used in Section 9(1) of the Act signifies dwelling in a place for some continuous time. Ordinarily resides therefore has to be some thing more than a temporary residence. In Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Dr. Kumari Vimala Gupta, 2003 (51) ALR 390 this Court has observed as under : “19. It has been urged that the expression “ordinarily resides” as used in Section 9(1) of the Act signifies dwelling in a place for some continuous time. Ordinarily resides therefore has to be some thing 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. The other aspect which cannot be ignored is that where a person leaves a place where he had been residing as permanent resident for good i.e. with no intention to come back and goes some other place to live there the former place where he used to live ceases to be ordinary place of residence and the later place becomes his ordinary place of residence. The question of residence is largely question of intention. However, in case of minor no question of intention can arise but the Court will have to take into consideration all the relevant facts as brought on record to determine the actual place of residence looking the attendant circumstances. The post abode for however a long period may be can cease to be a place where the minor can be said to be ordinarily residing depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the nature and duration of the residence. The mere fact that a minor is found actually residing at a place at the time of the application is made by itself is not sufficient to determine the jurisdiction. 20. The expression ordinarily resides and residing at the time of the application are not synonymous and stipulate different situations which are not inter-changeable. The place where the minor ordinarily resides indicates a place where the minor is expected to reside but for the special circumstances it excludes 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. The place where the minor ordinarily resides indicates a place where the minor is expected to reside but for the special circumstances it excludes 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. The place has to be determined by finding out as to whether the minor was ordinarily residing and where such residence would have continued but for the recent removal of the minor to different place.” 12. In Navin Singh v. Jyoti Parashar, AIR 2004 All 441 this Court has observed in para 24 as follows : “24. The facts of the case as contained in the application filed by the respondent and the affidavit as well as the rejoinder affidavit makes it clear that respondent wanted to get herself freed as she felt her life and dignity in danger while living with her husband and their family members. In paragraphs 12 to 14 of the application relevant averments have been made. The averment makes it clear that she along with her parents got an opportunity to leave the husband’s place and since then she is living at Agra. The averments make it clear that respondent was disgusted with the atmosphere at husband’s house and came to Agra to live with her parents. At the time when child came with the respondent, child was less then 5 years and child was living with mother when he was taken away forcibly on 3-11-2003 by the husband. The word “ordinarily resides” came for consideration by this Court in AIR 1956 All 328 , Smt. Kamla v. Bhanu Mal where it was held that where the mother leaves the place where she had been residing as a permanent resident for good and goes to some other place and lives there for a considerable time, her children who live with her will also be deemed to be residing at the place to which she has shifted. Following was laid down in paragraph 4 : “4. The next question that arises is where these minors ordinarily residing? It is admitted that three of the children are very young and they are living with their mother at Roorkee. One of them, the eldest is with Bhanumal at Gonda. Following was laid down in paragraph 4 : “4. The next question that arises is where these minors ordinarily residing? It is admitted that three of the children are very young and they are living with their mother at Roorkee. One of them, the eldest is with Bhanumal at Gonda. During the life time of their father, the minors were living at Gonda, but soon after the death of their father their mother Smt. Kamla left Gonda practically, as it appears, for good.” 13. In K.C. Shashidhar v. Smt. Roopa, AIR 1993 Kant 120 the Court has observed in paragraphs 4 and 5 as follows : “4. Invariably a minor child that too at the age of 10 to 11 months is expected to be with the custody of the mother. So the words “ordinarily resides” should be construed as the place where the mother resides before the presentation of the petition. It is an admitted fact that, in the instant case the mother was residing at Mysore when she presented the petition at Mysore seeking custody of the child. Further it is to be noted that she has alleged in her petition circumstances under which the child was forced to be left in the custody of the father. When such is the case the place of residence has to be construed as the place where mother resided before presenting the petition. In view of that, the finding given by the Court below that the petition filed by the petitioner namely the mother at Mysore having jurisdiction does not suffer from any legal infirmities. In Mst. Firoza Begum v. Akhtaruddin Laskar, AIR 1963 Assam 193 wherein the Assam High Court observed (at page 194 of AIR) : “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 be taken as the place where the legal guardian is residing.... 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 be taken as the place where the legal guardian is residing.... 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 phrase “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, since the child is of under age, the legal guardian would be the mother and the place of her residence, on the date of the presentation of the petition, is the place where it is to be construed as the minor “ordinarily resided” and as such the finding arrived at by the Court below does not suffer from any legal infirmities. Hence the circumstances do not warrant interference of this Court in exercise of its power under Section 115 of the C.P.C. Accordingly this C.R.P. is dismissed. No costs.” 14. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the following decisions : (1) Smt. Jiwant Pandey v. Kishan Chand Pandey, AIR 1982 SC 3 ; (2) Arshad Bhai Jina Bhai Desai v. Bhaona Beg, AIR 2003 Guj 74 ; (3) Jagdish Chand Gupta v. Dr. Vimla Gupta, AIR 2003 All 317 . 15. All the aforesaid cases cited at bar are confined to their own facts and so far as place of residence of the minor is concerned, it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. 16. It is not disputed that Smt. Rajni Sharma after the death of her husband, left Gautam Budh Nagar and has settled down at Lucknow wherein she is continuously staying since 13-9-2002 alongwith her minor child. The application for guardianship of the person of minor was filed much after that i.e. 13-12-2002 by the respondents. 16. It is not disputed that Smt. Rajni Sharma after the death of her husband, left Gautam Budh Nagar and has settled down at Lucknow wherein she is continuously staying since 13-9-2002 alongwith her minor child. The application for guardianship of the person of minor was filed much after that i.e. 13-12-2002 by the respondents. As held by this Court in Ram Swaroop v. Chiman Lal (supra) that when a person leaves his place where he has been residing as permanent residence for good with no intention to come back to it and goes to some other place to live there, the former place where he used to live ceases to be his ordinary place of residence. The latter place becomes his ordinary place of residence. The question of residence is largely a question of intention. In the case of minors no question of intention arises. But the Court will take into consideration their actual place of residence at the time of the application and regard that as their ordinary place of residence. 17. It has been alleged by Smt. Rajni Sharma that after the death of her husband i.e. on 23-7-2002 her in laws started torturing her and they grabbed her Stri Dhan, however their allegation has been denied by the respondents. Nevertheless, one thing is very clear that after the death of her husband, she had not gone merely to visit Lucknow. In the back drop of the facts and circumstances of the case as recited above, it can be safely inferred that she had gone to Lucknow alongwith her minor child with the intention to settle down there with no intention to come back to Gautam Budh Nagar particularly when she has already lost her husband. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that Smt. Rajni Sharma is continuously residing at Lucknow since 13-9-2002 although subsequent period to the filing of application is not very relevant for the purposes of determining territorial jurisdiction of the Court but it definitely indicates the intention of Smt. Rajni Sharma. Thus it cannot be said that Smt. Rajni Sharma had gone to Lucknow on 13-9-2002 just to visit that place or with an intention to come back again and to stay with respondents. 18. Thus it cannot be said that Smt. Rajni Sharma had gone to Lucknow on 13-9-2002 just to visit that place or with an intention to come back again and to stay with respondents. 18. One very important aspect of the matter cannot be ignored, that the husband of Smt. Rajni Sharma has already expired and the application has been moved by her father and mother-in-law for the guardianship of minor child. Since he has already lost her husband and she is not having good relations with them, it cannot be said that the residence at Lucknow where Smt. Rajni Sharma alongwith her child is residing is a temporary one. The question of residence is largely a question of intention and this Court can definitely take into consideration the actual place of residence at the time of application . The minor child is admittedly staying with her mother at Lucknow. The Court below while rejecting the objection of the petitioner with regard to the territorial objection has ignored all these important aspect of the matter. The approach of the Court below while passing the impugned order is superficial and too casual and the Court has not recorded any cogent or convincing reasons while rejecting the objection of Smt. Rajni Sharma and has come to abrupt conclusion that the Court at Gautam Budh Nagar has territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. 19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 7-12-2004 and the consequential order dated 29-1-2005 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 20. The Court below/Additional District Judge (Special Judge, EC Act) Ghaziabad will have no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed under Section 7/25 of the Guardianship Act. The impugned orders are hereby quashed and the Court below is directed not to further proceed with the matter and drop the proceedings. However, passing of this order will not prevent the respondents from moving application before the Court of competent jurisdiction in this respect. 21. Consequently the present revision is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ————