MST. FIROZA BEGUM Vs. AKHTARUDDLN LASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference is made by the District Judge, Cachar at Silchar, before whom the guardianship proceedings were instituted and are pending. The learned District Judge points out that the Petitioner before him in the petition which was filed under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act (Act' 8 of 1890), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', is the mother of the two minor children. The petition was opposed before the learned District Judge, Silchar, by the father of the minors. It would appear from the reference that Misc. Case No. 29 of 1961 was before the Additional District Judge's Court, Lower Assam Districts, at Gauhati, for the same relief, namely the appointment of a guardian of the person of the minors. This reference was accordingly mode under Section 14 of the Act.

(2.) MR . Ghose, the learned Counsel for the father of the minors, the Petitioner before the District Judge at Gauhati, points out that as the proceedings were instituted by the father earlier, namely 21 -3 -1960, whereas the proceedings by the mother, in the District Judge's Court at Silchar, were Instituted only on 11 -12 -1961 and that as the proceedings in the District Judge's Court at Gauhati were instituted much earlier, that Court alone should be allowed to proceed with the matter.

(3.) IT is contended by Mr. Ghose that the expression "ordinarily resides does not mean casual or factual resi dence 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. He placed reliance in the cases of Jhala Harpalsinh v. Bai Arunkunvar,, AIR 1954 Sau 13; Chandra Kishore v. Smt. Hem lata Gupta, (S), All 1955 All 611 and Sarada Nayar v. Vayan kara Amma, : AIR 1957 Ker 158.