Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This is a reference under Section 14 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The facts of the case are that there was one Krishna Kumar Who died leaving his widow Srimati Kamla and her four children. Krishna Kumar's father is Bhanumal. After the death of Krishna Kumar it appears that Smt. Kamla with her three children went to Tehri where her father was residing. But as the children had to be educated she shifted to Roorkee and is residing with her maternal uncle, who is a professor in the Roorkee University.

4. The next question that arises is, where were these minors ordinarily residing? It is admitted that three of the children are very young and they are living with their mother at Roorkee. One of them, the eldest, is with Bhanumal at Gonda. During the life time of their father, the minors were living at Gonda, but soon after the death of their father their mother Smt. Kamla left Gonda practically, as it appears, for good.

She had first gone to Tehri and is at present residing at Roorkee for the education of her children. It cannot be said now, when the mother Smt. Kamla has settled at Roorkee, and the three children after the death of their father have never resided at Gonda, that they are "ordinarily residing" at Gonda. The word "reside" has nowhere been defined and the dictionary meaning is "dwelling permanently, or for a considerable time to have one settled or usual abode; to live in or at a particular place."

The question of residence is largely a question of intention. In the case of minors no question of intention arises. But the Court will take into consideration their actual place of residence at the time of the application and regard that as their ordinary place of residence."

5. Thus, it is clear that the place where the three minors ordinarily resided will be deemed to be Roorkee.

6. It was contended on behalf of Bhanumal that actually Smt. Kamla had no permanent abode. Notices had been issued by Gonda Court by different addresses and had been returned unserved because she could not be found either at Tehri or at Roorkee Even if there be no permanent abode the children must be deemed to be living where they are actually residing.

Further in any event, they had not been residing for a considerable time at Gonda and they cannot be said to be ordinarily residing at Gonda, simply because some time back they had lived at Gonda. In the case -- Smt. Vimla Bai v. Baburao Shamrao', AIR 1951 Nag 179 (C), it was held, "When a man has no permanent abode he must be deemed to reside where he actually resides. It follows therefore that his children must also be deemed to reside at the place where he happens to reside."

7. Here the mother is actually residing at Roorkee and therefore, her children will also be deemed to be residing at Roorkee.