V. B. RAJU, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner filed a petition for divorce under sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 against his wife Vimal on the ground that she was living with one Madhukar opponent No. 2. He also claimed Rs. 10 0 as damages from Madhukar. The learned Civil Judge held that the claim for damages was not tenable in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. It is against this order that the present revision application has been filed. ( 2 ) IN revision it is contended that under Rule 5 of the Bombay High Court Rules it is obligatory for a petitioner who files a petition on the ground of adultery to name and cite the co-respondent. It is therefore urged that under order 2 Rule 2 and Order 2 Rule 3 C. P. Code the claim for damages against an adulterer can be joined in the petition for divorce in view of the provisions of sec. 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 It is also contended that under the Hindu Marriage Act the forms attached to the Indian Divorce Act have to be followed as far as possible and that the form in Sch. II of the Indian Divorce Act makes a provision for a claim of damages. It is also contended that under art. 21 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act as amended there is a provision for court-fees in a claim for damages against an adulterer in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. It is therefore contended that under the Court fees Act a claim for damages can be joined in a petition for divorce. It is lastly contended that unless there is a provision barring such a joinder the joinder of a claim for damages against an adulterer in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act should be allowed which lies under the law of Torts. ( 3 ) IN my opinion there is no merit in any of these contentions for the following reasons:under Rule 5 of the rules framed by the Bombay High Court under sec. 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act it is provided that the alleged adulterer should be joined as co-respondent. ( 3 ) IN my opinion there is no merit in any of these contentions for the following reasons:under Rule 5 of the rules framed by the Bombay High Court under sec. 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act it is provided that the alleged adulterer should be joined as co-respondent. Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as follows : ( 4 ) SUBJECT to the other provisions contained in this Act and to such rules as the High Court may make in this behalf. all proceedings under this Act shall be regulated as far as may be by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (V of 1908 ). ( 5 ) AS provided in the section all proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act shall be regulated as far as may be by the Code of Civil Procedure and by the rules made by the High Court in this behalf. But the section does not provide that the Civil Procedure Code and the High Court Rules shall decide what proceedings shall lie under the Act What proceedings lie under the Act must be found in the provision of the Act itself. There is no provision in the Hindu Marriage Act whereby in a petition for divorce the husband can claim damages against the alleged adulterer. There is such a provision in sec. 34 of the Indian Divorce Act 1869 but there is no such provision in the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 That is why in the form attached to the Indian Divorce Act there is a provision relating to claim for damages against the adulterer. But forms attached to the Indian Divorce Act are only to be used as far as possible in a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act. As the Hindu Marriage Act makes no provision for a claim for damages against the alleged adulterer such a claim does not lie simply because in the form attached to the Indian Divorce Act claim for damages is shown as follows :petition by husband for a dissolution of marriage with damages against co-respondent by reason of adultery. ( 6 ) THIS was in view of sec. ( 6 ) THIS was in view of sec. 34 the Indian Divorce Act 1869 ( 7 ) AS regards the contention that under Order 2 Rule 2 and Order 2 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code there can be a joinder of causes of action we must remember that under the Hindu Marriage Act a petition is filed for divorce. Assuming without deciding that a suit lies against the alleged adulterer for damages under the law of Torts such a suit could not be joined in the petition under the Hindu Marriage Act. A petition under the Hindu Marriage Act is not a suit under the civil law. A petition for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act has to be filed in the District Court whereas a suit for damages has to be filed in the Court of Civil Judge. Sec. 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. Even if the District Court is a principle Court of civil jurisdiction a suit for damages will have to be filed in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division or Senior Division as the case may be. Such a suit cannot be joined with a petition for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act which has to be filed in the District Court. In my opinion Order 2 Rule 2 and Order 2 Rule 3 C. P. Code have no application in the present case. Sec. 21 of the Hindu marriage Act does not make them applicable. Sec. 21 of the said Act does not deal with the question as to what proceedings lie under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 but deals with the question of the procedure to be adopted after a proceeding has been instituted under the Hindu Marriage Act. ( 8 ) ARTICLE 21 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act as amended in 1959 reads as follows : @@@ number 1 - 2 proper fee 3 21. Plaint, application, petition or memorandum of appeal under the Parsi Mariage and Divorce Act, 1936, the special Marriage Act, 1954, or the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Thirty seven rupees fifty naye paise. . Provided that where in addition to divorce damages are claimed. Plaint, application, petition or memorandum of appeal under the Parsi Mariage and Divorce Act, 1936, the special Marriage Act, 1954, or the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Thirty seven rupees fifty naye paise. . Provided that where in addition to divorce damages are claimed. A fee as above plus a fee on the amount of damages claimed according tio the scale prescribed under art. 1 of schedulei. ( 9 ) IT is truethat the provision is made in it for payment of court-fees in regard to a claim for damages. It is contended that there is no specific provision for a claim for damages either in the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act or in the Special Marriage Act 1954 or in the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and that therefore the Article 21 of Sch. II of the Bombay Court Fees Act must have intended the joinder of a claim for damages against the alleged adulterer in a petition under a Hindu Marriage Act. But the provisions of this Act cannot widen the scope of the Hindu Marriage Act. As to what proceedings lie under the Hindu Marriage Act is a matter to be decided after considering the provisions of that Act. Although there is a provision in section 34 of the Indian Divorce Act 1869 allowing the claim for damages to be made under the Indian Divorce Act no provision is found in the Hindu Marriage Act. ( 10 ) AS regard the contention that unless there is something to bar the joinder in question the Court should not hold the joinder to be barred I think the proposition is just the reverse. Unless there is a clear provision allowing such a joinder such a joinder cannot be permitted when one is a claim of the nature of a suit for damages against the adulterer and the other is a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 Divorce in not a civil remedy but a special remedy. ( 11 ) IT is contended that in the written statement of the wife and the alleged adulterer the only objection taken was to the payment of court-fees and objection was not taken that a claim for damages as such is not tenable. But whether such a claim is tenable or not does not depend on the nature of the written statement. The Court has no jurisdiction to try. But whether such a claim is tenable or not does not depend on the nature of the written statement. The Court has no jurisdiction to try. I therefore agree with the view taken by the learned Judge of the Court below that a claim for damages is not tenable in the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act and dismiss this civil revision application. No order as to costs. Application dismissed. .