' ZUBDA-TUL-HUSSAIN, J.---The spouses namely Malik Gulraiz Ahmad Awan i,e, the petitioner and the respondent Asma Gulraiz Awan have two minor children namely Parwasha Fatima and Muhammad Qutab Awan out of their wedlock. As ill luck would have it, they could not live harmonious family life and the respondent was constrained to take her residence with her parents, who according to the petitioner were residents of Multan. The minors were also taken by her to the house of her parents. Then cropped up some litigation between them regarding the guardianship of the minors.
2. On 7-6-2005, the respondent filed an application under section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act at Lahore. She also instituted an application under section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, before the learned Guardian Judge, Lahore. On 16-7-2005, the petitioner moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. Contending that the minors were ordinarily residing at Multan and as such, the learned Guardian Judge at Lahore lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate in the matter.
3. The application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Guardian Judge, Lahore through order dated 14-12-2006. Appeal filed by the petitioner there against was also dismissed by the learned Addl. Ditrict Judge, Lahore on 17-10-2007. The validity of both these orders has been questioned in the instant writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that both the learned Courts were misled in the interpretation of the provisions of section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The learned counsel submitted that immediately before the institution of the application by the respondent before the learned Guardian Judge Lahore, the minors and their mother were residing in District Multan, which was the place, where they were "ordinarily residing" and the temporary removal of the minors to Lahore could not bestow jurisdiction on the learned Guardian Judge, Lahore for the trial of the application filed before it. According to the learned counsel, the words "ordinarily resides" have a different connotation in contradistinction with the temporary or the permanent place of residence. He contended that immediately before their removal to Lahore and prior to the institution of the application before the learned Guardian Judge, Lahore, the minors were putting up at Multan along with their mother and as such, the place of their residence could not be stretched to 'Lahore as the place where they ordinarily reside, because they had been taken to Lahore with ulterior motive to divest the Court of learned Guardian Judge, Multan of the jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon the matter of guardianship relating to the minor children, of the parties.
5. The respondent was, at one stage, represented by her learned counsel namely Mr. Qamar-uz- Zaman, Advocate but since after 3-4-2008, neither the said learned counsel nor the respondent or some other counsel has appeared on her behalf. Accordingly, ex parte arguments have been heard.
6. The word "ordinarily", by its dictionary meanings, has been defined as "usually, commonly, mostly and normally." Sometimes it is A also used to connote a thing adopted habitually as a rule by and large. The words "where the minor ordinary resides" have been used in sections 9 and 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the purpose of determination of the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain an application regarding the appointment and declaration of the guardians. It inter alia provides that 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" (the emphasis is provided).
7. Such residence means residence in fact and not merely the residence in law such as for the purpose of domicile etc. The contention of the respondent as it seems from her pleadings is that the minors are not simply residing at Lahore, but they are also admitted to certain C prestigious educational institutions, by which perhaps the respondent intended to show that Lahore was the place of residence of the minors for all intents and purposes with the meanings of section 9 ibid.
8. It can hardly be disputed that for the purposes of section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, the words "ordinarily resided" are not synonymous to the occasional or temporary' residence. The provisions of section 9(1) have to be given ordinary and usual meaning connoting some habitat in contradistinction with the occasional or temporary residence. It may also be appreciated that the words "ordinarily residence" also do not equate with the words "ordinarily resides" as used in section 9(1) ibid. The ordinary residence is the one, which generally has a permanent character and makes the residents available in normal curse of life. As against it, ordinarily resides, despite being a usual residence, may have a little bit different level of permanency. The question as to what place, the minors ordinarily reside, is a question of fact to be decided on the basis of evidence placed on record.
9. As per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in section 9(1) ibid, the emphasis undoubtedly is on the minor's place of residence, to be determined by finding out as to where the minor was ordinarily residing and where such residence would have continued, but the recent removal' of the minor to a different place, cannot be termed as the place, where the minor "ordinarily resides". It cannot be disputed in so far as the academic interpretation of the provisions is concerned: But even this proposition has to be understood in the peculiar circumstances of every case. The words "ordinarily resides", of course, do not mean temporary dwelling, because the temporary removal or evening at the place, implies the cessation of such dwelling on a short interval. All these meanings have to be assigned to the case in hand in the light of its own relevant circumstances.
10. A person or a child may have been residing for years at a specific place, his parents may also be the residents of such place, but the situation can radically change if in the circumstances of the family and especially for any substantial need and requirement of the minor, decision is taken for their shifting to some other place. One example of such a case may be that, where because of differences with the husband or for any other excuse, a wife may opt to live at some place other than the place, where she had been living with her husband and she also takes the children with her. Another incident of such situation can be the need and requirement of a spouse or of the children. If one of the spouses moves to a place for earning his livelihood and the transfer is not for a G short-specified time, his residence at the new place can be called the place where he ordinarily resides. Another example, which may have a direct reference to the case in hand, is where the children are shifted for the purpose of their education. If they join regular classes in regular and well recognized educational institution at the same time it being the intention of one or of both the spouses to continue their education at such place, the place of their education shall also become the place where they ordinary reside.
11. It has of-course to be seen whether in this process, their residence at the place of their school is merely, temporary or they have been shifted with determination to live and continue their education there. There is no doubt that in the present case, the minors were shifted from Multan to Lahore, but the simple fact of their shifting cannot mean anything for or against any of the patties.
It would in fact be the intention with which they have been shifted to Lahore, which shall determine as to whether they are ordinarily residing at Lahore. If they are staying at Lahore, but are going back to Multan on weekly holidays, this position will not provide jurisdiction to the learned Court under section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, but if they are "permanently" residing at Lahore and their mother is also there to look them after, the educational institutions, which they have joined have the name and fame in the society, the circumstances would lead to conclude that they have not simply been removed from Multan for defeating the ends of justice or requirements of section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act. It would rather be a place where they are ordinarily residing and thus, the learned, Guardian Judge at Lahore shall have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matters of their guardianship.
12. The expression "ordinarily resides" may signify a casual dwelling at a place, where mother may bring the children with a positive intention to provide them education. It may not be permanent dwelling place either, but it is definitely not a temporary dwelling as well. If the mother, as in this case is evident from the record, shifted the minors to Lahore for providing them better chance of education and subsequently also acted upon such intention and got the children admitted in the prestigious educational institutions, the circumstances would lead to the only conclusion that the minors had been shifted to Lahore, which has to be construed as the place, where they "ordinarily reside".
13. In view of the above, the contentions raised in the petition are not tenable. The learned Guardian Judge Lahore rightly assumed jurisdiction in the matter. The application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. Was rightly dismissed by the learned Guardian Judge. Similarly, the dismissal of appeal was also in accordance with the law. The impugned orders dated 14-12-2006 and 17-10-2007 are unexceptionable.
14. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs.