HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 607 OF 2025 ORDER: By this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-wife has prayed for setting aside the order dated 19-02-2025 in I.A.No. 8 of 2025 in F.C.O.P.No. 268 of 2023 on the file of the Court of learned Judge, Family Court – cum – V Additional District Judge, Tirupati (for short, 'the trial Court'). 2. Heard Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife, and Sri N.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband. 3. The marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent- husband was solemnized on 06-12-2015 in D.P.R. Kalyanamandapam at Tirupati as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community. They were blessed with a male child, namely Vihan Reddy, on 09-03-2017. After some time, disputes arose between the petitioner- wife and the respondent-husband. The petitioner-wife initially filed F.C.O.P.No. 256 of 2022 on the file of the trial Court against the respondent-husband under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of their marriage by granting decree of divorce. The respondent-husband contested the said O.P. During 2 pendency of F.C.O.P.No. 256 of 2022, the respondent-husband filed I.A.No. 1327 of 2022 for being granted visitation rights to visit and interact with his son. After hearing both sides, the trial Court by order dated 24-11-2023 granted visitation rights to the respondent-husband to visit and interact with his son for a period of three hours on every third Sunday starting from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-wife moved this Court by way of Civil Revision Petition No. 3305 of 2023. This Court by order dated 23-02-2024 disposed of the Civil Revision Petition, without modifying or setting aside the order under revision, directing the trial Court to complete the trial in the matter and dispose of F.C.O.P.No. 256 of 2022 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. After elaborate trial, the trial Court dismissed F.C.O.P.No. 256 of 2022 by order dated 04-09-2024. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-wife preferred appeal in F.C.A.No. 113 of 2024 before this Court and the same is pending. While things stand thus, the respondent-husband filed F.C.O.P.No. 268 of 2023 on the file of the trial Court against the petitioner-wife under Sections 7 and 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short, '1890 Act') and Section 7 of Family Courts Act seeking a direction to the petitioner-wife to handover custody of his minor son Vihan Reddy and the same is pending. During pendency of the above 3 O.P., the petitioner-wife filed I.A.No. 8 of 2025 under Order XIV Rule 2 (2) (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to frame a preliminary issue with regard to maintainability of the petition on the point of jurisdiction. After hearing both sides, the trial Court has dismissed the above interlocutory application by the order under revision. 4. Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- wife, would contend that as the minor child is residing at Bengaluru, the Court at Tirupati has no jurisdiction to try the O.P. as per the provisions of Section 9 (1) of 1890 Act and therefore the respondent-husband has to file the O.P. at Bengaluru where the minor child is residing. In support of his contention, learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Atheesh Sanka Vs. Sanka (Mamidi) Lakshmi Renuka1. 5. Per contra, Sri N.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband, would contend that question of jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law and therefore the same cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. In support of his contention, learned counsel 1 (2023) 4 ALT 465 4 places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ruchi Majoo Vs. Sanjeev Majoo2. 6. Section 9 of 1890 Act makes a specific provision as regards the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a claim for grant of custody of a minor. While sub-section (1) of Section 9 identifies the Court competent to pass an order for the custody of the person of the minor, sub-sections (2) and (3) thereof deal with Courts that can be approached for guardianship of the property owned by the minor. Section 9 (1) alone is, therefore, relevant for the purpose of the present case. It says: "9. Court having jurisdiction to entertain application – (1) 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." It is evident from a bare reading of the above that the solitary test for determining the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 9 of 1890 Act is the "ordinary residence" of the minor. The expression used is "where the minor ordinarily resides". Now whether the minor is ordinarily residing at a given place is primarily a question of intention which in turn is a question of fact. It may at best be a mixed question of law and fact, 2 (2011) 6 SCC 479 5 but unless the jurisdictional facts are admitted it can never be a pure question of law, capable of being answered without an enquiry into the factual aspects of the controversy. 7. In the judgment relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife, the minor child was born in United States of America and the child is a citizen of United States of America and that even before filing the O.P., it was a fact that both parties approached Circuit Court for the Country of Kent Family Division, State of Michigan, United States of America, on 08-03-2019 for grant of divorce. The facts in the case on hand are entirely different from the facts of the judgment relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife. As question of jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ruchi Majoo (2nd supra), the same cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court and the order under revision does not warrant any interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage confirming the order dated 19-02-2025 in I.A.No. 8 of 2025 in F.C.O.P.No. 268 of 2023 on the file of the Court of learned Judge, Family Court – cum – V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of F.C.O.P.No. 268 of 6 2023 as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both parties are directed to cooperate for early disposal of the O.P. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. ________________________ Date: 17-04-2025, JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY JSK 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 607 OF 2025 DATE: 17TH APRIL, 2025 JSK