Another example I can think of is.. Police chasing a theif. Theif runs away a man sees him. This is the conversation Pol: Chor kidhar gaya – Where did the theif go? Man: Iss taraf – this side. One more example Now sometimes there are diversions on High way. Suppose I am Mexico heading towards Mexico City and I reach a diversionand I am confused so I ask a lady passing by. Here’s the conversation that I will use. Me: Madam, kya aap bata sakti hain Mexico City KIDHAR hai? – Madam can u tell where is Mexico City? (Wells he might give me an amazed look and say “Que hablas! Estas locho?” ha! Ha! But in a hypothetical world let’s imagine Mexicans know Hindi or at least the lady we met knows :D ) Lady: Ji haan, is taraf – yes, this way Me: Bahut bahut shukriya BUT Sitting in India if I wanna ask Where is Mexico city? I will say Mexico city Kahan hai? – Where is Mexico city And the reply I expect is Mexico Mein, Yeh shahar Mexico ki raajdhaani hai – In mexico, this city is the capital of Mexico. And not this side or that side :D So the gist I get is.. Both are interchangeable no hard and fast rule But Preferably (atleast I would) Use Kahan when the place being talked about is FAR and you expect the reply to be a LOCATION And Use KIDHAR when when the place being talked about is relatively NEAR and you expect the reply to be pointing towards a DIRECTION. Well having answered your question I feel a lot clearer myself so thanks for asking :) Still any doubts you can always Ask :)

"kidhar" is formal one...both means same but if you want to use in formal way you should use "kidhar" with friend you can say "kahan"...i think this will help

there is no difference, just they sound different, i cant recall any specific situation where only kidhar will be apt

Hola :) Hmmm... I must say Good question Lym and as I often say for the natives their language is like breathing air they seldom bother a little here and there. To be continued... in my personal opinion I agree that Kahan and Kidhar are used interchangeably many times . But I am a little doubtful about one being more formal than other. For eg. if I am talking to a friend (inf) I might say. Tum kidhar jaa rahi ho (f) - Where are you going? Tum kahan jaa rahi ho - where are you going? or talking to an elder Aap kidhar rehte hain? (m) - Where do you live? Aap kahan rehte hain? - Where do you live. So what's the difference? I must say food for thought...so I thought about it trying to recall instances where I heard Kidhar and where I heard Kahan. And here I try to explain what I realized: Kidhar is used in a question when you expect to here a 'direction' in reply and the object being talked is near. Eg. Suppose I am a tourist in say...Hyderabad..I am is heading towards Salarjung Museum but he doesn't know the exact way. so he asks a man and this is the conv. that takes pace. *** ME: Bhai Sahab Yeh Salarjung Sangrahalya (or Museum) KIDHAR hai ? - (Sir. Where is this Salarjung Museum?) MAN: Us taraf - That Side Me: Shukriya. Now see the Man pointed me towards a direction and the place was near me. Now Coming to KAHAN Kahan is used when the palce is not near and it refers to a location and not direction Suppose I am in a Class and the teacher wants to ask me "where is Salarjung Museum?" I feel a better way to say is Salarjung Museum KAHAN hai? – Where is Salarjung Museum? ME: Hyderabad mein – In Hyderabad Now note that this time I am not near Salarjung nor I am going there and instead of pointing to a direction my reply is Location.