15. At this juncture, it will but be appropriate to advert to some of the decisions relied upon by either side. Learned counsel for the appellant cited before us the decisions in (1) Acharya Sri. KundariMaharaj v. Smt. Indra, AIR 2004 Rajsthan 90; (2) Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Dr.KumariVimla Gupta, 2003 (3) AWC 2133; (3) KonduparthiVentateswarlu v. RamavarapuVirojaNandan, AIR 1989 Orissa 151; (4) Smt. JeewantiPandey v. Kishan Chandra Pandey, AIR 1982 SC 3; (5) JagirKaur v. JaswantSsingh, AIR 1963 SC 1521; (6) Union of India v. DudhNath Prasad, AIR 2000 SC 524; and (7) BhagwanDass v. Kamal Abrol, AIR 2005 SC 2583. 16. In the first decision, the appellants were the grandfather and grandmother of the minor children Rohit and Mohit and they had approached the Family Court at Jodhpur for their custody. Father of the children Purandass had died on 09.08.1999. Post demise of the husband, the wife Smt. Indira was given compassionate appointment in the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, from where she sought transfer to Jaipur and settled there. The mother subsequently solemnized second marriage with one Krishna Kumar, with whom she gave birth to a female child. After vetting through the pleadings and looking to the facts and circumstances, in the aforesaid decision a Division Bench of Rahsthan High Court rejected the claim of the appellant-grand parents and held that the ordinary place of residence will be with the mother of the wards at Jaipur. This decision, in our opinion, is against the case pleaded by the appellant himself.
