JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - This revision application u/s 115 CPC calls in question the interlocutory order dated 8-4.1970 by which the learned Trial Judge called upon the Defendant wife to begin the evidence at the trial. 2. The Plaintiff who is the husband filed T.S. No. 13 of 1968 for restitution of (sic) rights on the allegation that he and the Defendant were married as husband and wife. For some time the Plaintiff lived in the house of his father-in-law as the latter had promised to educate the Plaintiff further. But as he was ill-treated he left the house and started living independently. When he desired his wife to come and be in his company she did not turn up. Therefore, he filed the suit. 3. The Defendant-wife contended that the husband had abandoned the wife, and, therefore, she obtained an order u/s 488, Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance of herself as also their child. As the Plaintiff had assaulted and ill-treated her and ultimately deserted her the Plaintiff was not entitled to restitution of conjugal rights. 4. On these pleadings the dispute arose as to who would begin. The marriage is admitted. Under the law the wife is bound to live with the husband. She owes an obligation, as long as the marriage tie is sustained, to be in his company and if she raises any defence like ill-treatment, cruelty, desertion, etc., the burden is certainly on her to establish any of these grounds to resist restitution. The learned Trial Judge in my view rightly called upon the Defendant to begin. There is hereby any scope for interference in this case. 5. Mr. Das for the Petitioner next contended that the suit was not maintainable and I should record a finding to that effect. His contention is that under the Hindu Marriage Act restitution of conjugal rights is provided for in Section 9 and as that Act admittedly applies to the marriage in question the provision of Section 9 of the Act has to be followed. Section 4 of the Act provides for the over-riding effect of the statute and Sub-section (b) says, ?any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act. Section 4 of the Act provides for the over-riding effect of the statute and Sub-section (b) says, ?any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act. Section 9(1) provides: When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply by petition to the District Court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the Court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly. The "District Court" has been defined in Section 3(b) of the Act and means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction and includes any other Civil Court which may be specified by, the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette, as having jurisdiction in respect of the matters dealt with in the Act. By notification No. 8304 dated 30-11-1966 the principal Subordinate Judges within the State of Orissa in their respective territorial jurisdictions have been empowered to deal with matters under the Act. In view of this position the learned Munsif cannot be said to have jurisdiction. If the Plaintiff had appeared in this revision the matter would have been concluded. This point was not clearly raised in the civil revision petition. But there seems to be merit in it. Many Courts have also taken a similar view. See Balwant Kunwar v. Addl. Munsif AIR 1959 All. 7 , Bootan Bai v. Durgaprasad AIR 1959 M.P. 410 and Bharwan Bai v. Lila Ram AIR 1963 Punj. 118. 6. The learned Munsif would do well to first decide as to whether the proceeding is maintainable in his Court. If he comes to hold that it is not maintainable he should return the plaint to the Plaintiff for presentation in proper Court in accordance with law. The civil revision is dismissed for the reasons already indicated, but with the direction made above. As there is no appearance for the opposite party there would be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed