As per case facts, the appellant challenged the Family Court's dismissal of his Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application, which sought to reject a child custody petition on jurisdictional grounds. ... The Family Court, Gurdaspur, had assumed jurisdiction over the minor child, aged under five years, deeming the mother the natural guardian irrespective of actual residence, based on a single bench judgment. The appellant argued that the child actually resided with him elsewhere, implying Gurdaspur lacked jurisdiction. The question arose whether the expression 'the place where the minor ordinarily resides' in Section 9(1) of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, implies physical residence or a deemed residence with the mother for children under five. Finally, the High Court, referring to its prior Division Bench judgment, dismissed the appeal, holding that a complete lack of adjudicatory jurisdiction was not evident at this preliminary stage. The court emphasized that 'ordinarily resides' requires careful factual analysis, considering the child's volition and manner of custody removal. The Family Court was directed to proceed with the trial, prioritizing the child's welfare.