JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) APPELLANT No. 1 Sushilabai was married to respondent No. 1 rohani Prasad at Bamhani in district Narsimhapur. After about 2 or 3 years of the marriage, the relations between the married couple became strained resulting in suit for maintenance by the wife against the husband. Earlier, on two occasions, the proceedings brought before the Court at Narsimhapur were withdrawn. Some Panchayat was also held at Bamhani where the respondent No. 1 executed a writing in favour of appellant No. 1 that he has retained her ornaments. The respondent No. 1 resides at Kharkhari in Katni tahsil. After giving some details of the past conduct of the respondents and alleging in paragraph 5 of the plaint that the respondent no. 1 has neglected the appellant No. 1 and has refused to maintain her, the appellants brought the suit for separate maintenance. Charge of cruelty was also levelled against the respondents. Prayer in the suit was for payment of monthly maintenance and for return of her ornaments. It was claimed that a charge be created for maintenance over the properties shown in Schedule c of the plaint. It may be mentioned that all these properties are situate outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Narsimhapur Court. The objection raised by the respondents as to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit has been upheld by the District Judge, Narsimhapur, before whom the suit was filed and by the impugned order, the plaint has been directed to be returned for proper presentation to proper Court. It is this order which has been challenged in this appeal. ( 2. ) IN the plaint, the jurisdiction of the Court at Narsimhapur to try the suit has been invoked firstly on the ground that the marriage was performed at Bamhani, a village admittedly lying within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court and, secondly, because in the Panchayat at Bamhani the respondent No. 1 has expressly agreed by writing, dated Chaitra Badi 12, samvat 2023, to maintain the appellant No. 1. Right of a Hindu wife and child to claim separate maintenance has since been codified by enactment of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (No. 78 of 1956 ). Section 18 of this Act enumerates the ground on which a wife can claim maintenance, while section 20 provides for claim for maintenance by children and aged parents. Right of a Hindu wife and child to claim separate maintenance has since been codified by enactment of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (No. 78 of 1956 ). Section 18 of this Act enumerates the ground on which a wife can claim maintenance, while section 20 provides for claim for maintenance by children and aged parents. Desertion, that is, abandoning the wife without reasonable cause and without her consent or against her wish, or wilfully neglecting her and treating her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with her husband, are included as grounds entitling the wife to maintenance from her husband. All the same, this Act, unlike the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does not contain any provisions regarding jurisdiction of a Court for such a claim. The jurisdiction in case of a claim for maintenance in any given case shall have therefore, to be regulated and governed by the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sections 15 to 20 of the Code provide for the place of suing, while section 21 states that no objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases, where issues are settled, at or before such settlement and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. It was very justly not disputed before me that sections 15 to 19 of the Code are not attracted and the only relevant provision governing the case in so far as relates to the claim for maintenance is section 20 of the Code which reads thus: "20. It was very justly not disputed before me that sections 15 to 19 of the Code are not attracted and the only relevant provision governing the case in so far as relates to the claim for maintenance is section 20 of the Code which reads thus: "20. Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for again; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Explanation. . . . . . . It is apparent that neither sub-section (a) nor sub-section (b) of section 20 is attracted. The defendants all reside beyond the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of District Judge, Narsimhapur. The only clause invoked by the learned counsel for the appellants was clause (c) and it was urged that the cause of action arose at Bamhani where the marriage took place and also where the appellant No. 1 was abandoned and the promise to maintain her was made by respondent No. 1. It was also urged that the wife was in the position of a creditor and the husband, a debtor. Therefore, it was said that the principle that the debtor must find the creditor must also be applied to a claim for maintenance for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction. ( 3. ) IT is the rule of Common Law in England that in absence of a contract to the contrary, a debtor is bound to find a creditor for making payment. The place of payment is the place where the creditor resides. Controversy regarding the extent of applicability of this rule in India apart, it must first be established that the parties are related as debtor and creditor before this rule can be invoked. The place of payment is the place where the creditor resides. Controversy regarding the extent of applicability of this rule in India apart, it must first be established that the parties are related as debtor and creditor before this rule can be invoked. This rule has been held not to apply to a claim for maintenance by a wife against the husband where the wife is compelled to live separately; See Ramlinga Iyer v. Jayalakshmi, AIR 1941 Mad 695 . In the madras case, as in the present case, the wife went away to live separately from the husband and claimed maintenance alleging mal-treatment. Return of Stridhan was also claimed. The suit was brought in the Court where the wife resided with her parents. It was held that the rule of English law that the debtor must find the creditor was not attracted and that the Court for that reason had no jurisdiction to try the suit. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in ramlinga Iyers case (supra) and hold that the rule that the debtor must find the creditor cannot be applied to a claim for maintenance by a Hindu wife or child to determine the territorial jurisdiction of a Court to try such action. ( 4. ) IN terms of section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance act, 1956, maintenance is claimable by the wife if she is deserted, i. e abadon-ed by the husband without any reasonable cause or that the husband wilfully neglects to maintain her and section 20 of that Act enables the child during his minority to claim maintenance against his father. Thus, abandonment or wilful neglect to maintain is a part of cause of action in a suit for maintenance. The Court within whose territorial limits the wife is abandoned shall have jurisdiction to try a suit for maintenance. Therefore, a suit for recovery of maintenance can be instituted in a Court within whose jurisdiction the plaintiff was abandoned as the abandonment is the part of cause of action for a claim for maintenance. A similar view was taken by the madras High Court in P. Ramanujulu and others v. Shiv Parvati Animal and another, (1955) 1 Mad. L J 397. A similar view was taken by the madras High Court in P. Ramanujulu and others v. Shiv Parvati Animal and another, (1955) 1 Mad. L J 397. wherein the learned Chief Justice held that abandonment could certainly be a part of cause of action in a suit for maintenance. In the present case, it has been alleged by the appellants, in paragraph 4 of the plaint, that the respondent No. 1 left the appellant No. 1 at Bamhni and then did not take her or the child back. It is also alleged that the respondent No. 1 wilfully neglected to maintain them. Thus in view of the averments, in para 4 of the plaint, it can well be said that so far as the claim for maintenance is concerned, the District Judge, Narsimhapur, had jurisdiction to try the suit as part of cause of action arose at village Bamhni, lying within its territorial jurisdiction. ( 5. ) FOR still another reason, the District Judge, Narsimhapur shall have jurisdiction to try the claim for maintenance. And it is this: The cause of action is that bundle of facts which it would be necessary for a plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. It does not comprise every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, but every fact, which is necessary to be proved. It is a media upon which the plaintiff asks a Court to a conclusion in his favour and has no relation to the defence set up in the written statement. Thus in a claim for maintenance against her husband, a wife cannot be entitled to a judgment without establishing the factum of marriage. The obligation of the husband to maintain the wife springs from the relationship which has its origin in the marriage. This liability continues so long as the wife does not disqualify herself to be entitled to it. Thus the marriage certainly forms a part of cause of action in a suit for maintenance because without proving the factum of marriage, the claim cannot be sustained. Thus a suit for recovery of maintenance by a wife can well be maintained in the Court within whose jurisdiction the marriage was performed. Decisions in k. Vajravelu Mudaliar v. Rajalakshmi, AIR 1954 Mad. 358 . and in Smt. Chandrawati v. Suraj narain, AIR 1955 All 387. Thus a suit for recovery of maintenance by a wife can well be maintained in the Court within whose jurisdiction the marriage was performed. Decisions in k. Vajravelu Mudaliar v. Rajalakshmi, AIR 1954 Mad. 358 . and in Smt. Chandrawati v. Suraj narain, AIR 1955 All 387. lend support to the view which I have taken. Admittedly, the appellant No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 were married at Bamhni in narsimhapur district. Thus the marriage took place within the jurisdiction of the Court of District Judge, Narsimhapur. ( 6. ) THE appellant No. 1, mother is entitled to the custody of the minor son appellant No. 2. who is entitled to be maintained by the father, the respondent No. 1. This child was also abandoned by the respondent No. 1 at Bamhni. The appellant No. 2 is also, therefore, entitled to lay his claim for maintenance in Narsimhapur Court which has jurisdiction to try it as part of cause of action arose at Bamhni. Thus, differing from the lower court, I hold that so far as the claim for maintenance is concerned, it has jurisdiction to try the suit. ( 7. ) SO far as the claim for refund of Stridhan (ornament) is concerned, it can safely be said that no part of cause of action for that relief arose within the jurisdiction of Court at Narsimhapur. The alleged promise to return the ornaments made at Bamhni long before the institution of the suit, is not the part of cause of action but is only the evidence of the fact that the ornaments were retained by the respondent No. 1. It is the wrongful detention of the ornaments which is the cause of action. That being so, the suit to claim refund of that Stridhan could only lie in the Court within whose jurisdiction the defendants resided. In this case, lower Court has rightly held that the suit for refund of Stridhan could only lie in the District within whose jurisdiction defendants resided. Admittedly, the respondents resided within the jurisdiction of the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur. Thus, not the court of District Judge, Narsimhapur but the Court of District Judge, jabalpur shall have jurisdiction to try the suit in that behalf. ( 8. Admittedly, the respondents resided within the jurisdiction of the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur. Thus, not the court of District Judge, Narsimhapur but the Court of District Judge, jabalpur shall have jurisdiction to try the suit in that behalf. ( 8. ) THEN again the Court of District Judge, Narsimhapur does not have jurisdiction to direct a decree for creating charge for maintenance over the properties situate outside the jurisdiction of that Court. The relief claimed in the suit is that the charge be created on the immoveable properties situate within the jurisdiction of the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur. Section 16 (d)of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a suit for determination of any other right to or interest in the immoveable property shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property situates, of course subject to pecuniary or other limitation prescribed by any law. The words "determination of any right" in immoveable property do not only mean determination of any existing right but also include the determination of a right claimed which may not be in existence at the time when the suit is brought. A suit claiming a right of maintenance to be charged on immoveable property shall, therefore, be a suit for determination of an interest on immoveable property. Thus where such properties sought to be charged to maintenance are situated beyond territorial limits of the Courts jurisdiction where the suit is instituted claiming this relief, the Court shall have no jurisdiction to try cause of action in that behalf and to grant the relief. See kanji Mulji Kanani v. Manglaben Parmanand, AIR 1969 Guj 308 . . For this reason, the District judge, Narsimhapur shall have no jurisdiction to grant this relief of creating a charge of maintenance over the properties specified in Schedule A of the plaint, as those properties are situate beyond the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. The decision of the learned District Judge, in this behalf, is correct and is, therefore, upheld. ( 9. ) IN the result, this appeal partly succeeds and is allowed to the extent that the lower Court (District Judge, Narsimhapur) shall have jurisdiction only to try the suit relating to the claim for maintenance. So far as other reliefs are concerned, it has no jurisdiction to try the suit and to that extent the appeal stands dismissed. ( 9. ) IN the result, this appeal partly succeeds and is allowed to the extent that the lower Court (District Judge, Narsimhapur) shall have jurisdiction only to try the suit relating to the claim for maintenance. So far as other reliefs are concerned, it has no jurisdiction to try the suit and to that extent the appeal stands dismissed. The case shall now go back to the district Judge, Narsimhapur, who shall try the suit only in so far as it relates to the claim for maintenance. Since the respondents were not represented, there shall be no order as to costs of this appeal. Appeal partly allowed.