K C SASHIDHAR Vs. ROOPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 4-2-92 passed in G and W 5/91.

(2.) A few facts briefly to state are that the petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband in the Court below. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and the respondent got married at Mysore and thereafter they started marital life at Bombay. The petitioner came to Mysore, her parental home, in the year 1990 for her confinement and the child was born at Mysore. It is an admitted fact that the wife along with her child went to Bombay to reside with her husband while they were living at Bombay, it is the case of the wife that while she was residing with her husband, she was driven out of the house along with her mother and the custody of the child was not given to her as such the circumstances warranted her to seek the intervention of the Court for the custody of the child. A preliminary objection has been raised regarding the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the child was not residing at Mysore, as on the date of the presentation of the petition.

(3.) It is submitted that since the child was residing with the father, the jurisdictional Court would be at Bombay and not at Mysore. So, the arguments centre round about as to what is to be construed to the word 'ordinarily resides'. S. 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 reads thus :-