JUDGMENT : The appellant has preferred this civil misc. appeal under Section 19 of Family Court Act, 1984 against the order dated 23.03.2015 passed in civil misc. petition No.379/2013 under Section 25 of the Guardians & Ward Act, and also against the order dated 23.03.2015 passed in civil misc. petition No.380/2013 under Section 12 of the Guardians & Ward Act, passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Pali. 2. The brief facts as noticed by this Court are that the appellant's marriage was solemnized with Smt. Dimple Parihar daughter of respondent No.1 & 2 on 30.04.2005 at Surat. On 07.11.2010, the wife of the appellant Smt. Dimple gave birth to a male child namely Darsh at Surat. On 07.12.2010, wife of the appellant became critically ill and succumbed to the illness. On 08.12.2010, the funeral of wife of the appellant was done at Pali, Rajasthan in which, the son of the appellant was also present. It is alleged that respondent No.1 & 2 thereafter gained the custody of appellant's son Darsh and continued with the custody. 3. The appellant filed an application under Section 97 of Cr.P.C. before SDM, Pali for recovery of his minor son Darsh on 07.3.2011 but the same did not result into the appellant getting the custody of his child. The appellant also complained to the Human Rights Organization but with no resort. While the litigation carried on between the parties, the petitioner sought intervention of the learned Family Court by filing an application under Section 25 of the Guardianship and Ward Act read with Section 12 of the Guardianship and Ward Act. The respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 9 of the Guardianship and Ward Act upon which, the Family Court dismissed the petition of the appellant on the sole ground of jurisdiction. 4. Learned Family Court has dealt with the facts of the case and recorded that the son of the appellant was born at Surat and the appellant thereafter, still continues to reside at Surat. Learned Family Court also held that Darsh had come to Pali for one time at the time of funeral and he was not ordinarily residing at Pali. Learned Family Court has dealt with the facts of the case and recorded that the son of the appellant was born at Surat and the appellant thereafter, still continues to reside at Surat. Learned Family Court also held that Darsh had come to Pali for one time at the time of funeral and he was not ordinarily residing at Pali. The Act whereas defines the jurisdiction under Section 9 and requires the invocation of jurisdiction at a place where the person ordinarily resides and the appellant has miserably filed before the learned trial court to point out that the son of the appellant Darsh was ordinarily residing at Pali. 5. It is agreed by both the parties that the marriage had happened at Surat, the son Darsh was born at Surat, the wife of the appellant had also died at Surat and thereafter, none of the parties ordinarily resides at Pali, therefore, Surat at best could be proper place to litigate. 6. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that once the jurisdiction is not there at Pali as in a matter of custody neither the child was born at Pali and nor he had ordinarily residing there therefore, merely on account of ancestral home of the parties, the jurisdiction cannot be claimed at Pali. The matrimony had been initiated at Surat and petitioner continued at Surat resulting into birth of Darsh and therefore, the appellant himself could not prove that he was ordinarily residing at Pali and thus, was not entitled for indulgence on merits. 7. The civil misc. appeal is accordingly dismissed.