### Minor's "ordinary residence" under Section 9(1) of Guardians and Wards Act is a mixed question of fact and law.

The petitioner (biological father) challenged orders dated 19.01.2024 and 28.02.2024 passed by the Family Court, Saket, which dismissed his application under Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (“the Act”).

The respondent (maternal grandmother) sought custody of the minor child ‘K’ following the death of the child’s mother in May 2021.

The respondent alleged the child lived with her in Malviya Nagar, Delhi, from birth until April 2023, when the petitioner allegedly took the child to Gurugram under false pretenses.

The petitioner contended the child had been residing with him in Gurugram since June 2022 and argued the Delhi court lacked territorial jurisdiction.

1. Whether the Family Court at Saket, Delhi, possesses the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the guardianship petition based on the "ordinary residence" of the minor child.

2. Whether the question of "ordinary residence" under Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act is a pure question of law or a mixed question of fact and law.

The court primarily applied Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which mandates that an application for guardianship must be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor "ordinarily resides".

It relied on *Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo* (2011) to establish that "ordinary residence" is a question of intention and fact.

Further, the court applied principles from *Adesh Gupta v. Sadhna Gupta* (2012) and *Dheeraj v. Chetna Goswami* (2024), holding that a minor’s temporary removal by stealth or compulsion does not shift the "ordinary residence" for jurisdictional purposes.

The Court observed that the child was born in Delhi and held a Delhi-addressed Aadhar card issued in 2021.

It noted that while the petitioner claimed the child moved to Gurugram in June 2022, the petitioner’s own pleadings admitted the child was in the respondent's care for a significant period after the mother's death.

The Court reasoned that "ordinarily resides" is distinct from "residing at the time of the application"; the term is meant to prevent a party from gaining a jurisdictional advantage by forcibly removing a child shortly before litigation.

Since the respondent filed a police complaint regarding the child's removal just two days prior to filing the guardianship petition, the Court found prima facie evidence that the child’s settled home was in Delhi.

Consequently, the Court determined that because jurisdictional facts were contested, the issue of jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law that requires a full inquiry/trial rather than summary rejection.

The Court held that the "ordinary residence" of the child was prima facie Malviya Nagar, Delhi.

It directed the petitioner to file a written statement within three weeks but waived the ₹5,000 cost previously imposed.

The Court clarified that the Family Court should ultimately decide the jurisdictional issue after evidence is led, without being influenced by the preliminary observations in the impugned order.