JUDGMENT - C.S. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:---This first appeal has been placed before the Division Bench in view of the reference made by Agarwal, J., vide order dated 18th April, 1983. 2. When the matter was placed for hearing before the Single Judge of this Court, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-husband raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal itself. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the decision of Mohata, J., in (Bhaskar v. Mirabai)1, 1983 Mh.L.J. 115. Since the learned Single Judge (Agarwal, J.) found it difficult subscribe to the view expressed by Mohata, J., in the said judgment, the matter was referred to Division Bench. 3. The respondent-husband filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce against the appellant-wife. It was contended by the respondent-husband that she had left the matrimonial home and went to reside with per parents without any rhyme or reason and thus has deserted him. The appellant wife resisted the petition. According to her she was always ready and willing to go and stay in the matrimonial home, but it was the husband who had refused to allow her to do so. 4. From the record it appears that initially this Hindu Marriage petition was filed before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Satara. The said petition was thereafter assigned by the District Judge in exercise of his powers under section 16 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, to learned Second Extra Assistant Judge, Satara and ultimately it came to be decided by him, vide his order, dated 30-4-1981. The learned Extra Assistant Judge, Satara granted the decree of divorce. Being aggrieved by this order the appellant wife filed the First Appeal before this Court. 5. Shri Kachare, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-husband contended before us that the view taken by Mohata, J., in Bhaskar v. Meerabai is the only view possible in law and, therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable. On the other hand it is contended by Shri Divekar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the view taken by Mohata, J., is wholly unsustainable. According to him, though the Division Bench decision of this Court in (Ambi Pundalik v. Pundalik)2, A.I.R. 1960 Bom. 521 was cited before Mohata, J. another decision of the Division Bench in (Gangadhar v. Manjula)3, A.I.R. 1960 Bom. According to him, though the Division Bench decision of this Court in (Ambi Pundalik v. Pundalik)2, A.I.R. 1960 Bom. 521 was cited before Mohata, J. another decision of the Division Bench in (Gangadhar v. Manjula)3, A.I.R. 1960 Bom. 42 was not brought to the notice of Mohata, J. Relying upon the said judgment which is subsequently approved and followed by Mysore High Court in (Mallappa v. Mallaya)4, A.I.R. 1960 Mys. 392 and by the Orissa High Court in (Nrusing Charan Nayak v. Smt. Hamant Kumari Nayak)5, A.I.R. 1978 Orissa 163, it is contended by Shri Divekar that the view taken by Mohata, J., requires reconsideration. 6. He also contended that in a case filed under the Hindu Marriage Act no valuation is contemplated nor it is necessary. Therefore, Mohata, J., was obviously wrong in coming to the conclusion that forum of appeal should be decided on the basis of valuation. Shri Divekar further contended that Assistant Judge is part and parcel of the District Court and, therefore, it is held that the appeal lies to the District Judge against the order passed by the Assistant Judge also, then it will practically amount to filing an appeal to the same Court. 7. We find much substance in the contention raised by Shri Divekar. It is quite obvious that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Gangadhar v. Manjula was not brought to the notice of Mohata, J. The right of appeal is conferred by section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 28, as it stood before the amendment was in the following terms : "28. All decrees and orders made by the Court in any proceeding under this Act shall be enforced in like manner as the decrees and orders of the Court made in the exercise of the original civil jurisdiction are enforced, and may be appealed from under any law for the time being in force; provided that there shall be no appeal on the subject of costs only." 8. This section has been substituted by the amending Act 68 of 1976, which reads as under :--- "28 (1) All decrees made by the Court in any proceeding under this Act shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), be appealable as "decrees of the Court made in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction, and every such appeal shall lie to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of the Court given in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. (2) Orders made by the Court in any proceeding under this Act under section 25 or section 26 shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), be appealable if they are not interim orders, and every such appeal shall lie to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of the Court given in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. (3) There shall be no appeal under this section on the subject of costs only. (4) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the decree or order." It is not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for both sides that so far as the forum of the appeal is concerned the provisions of amended or unamended section makes no difference. After reading the amended and unamended provisions we are satisfied that there is no substantial difference between the original and the amended provisions, so far as the controversy involved in this First Appeal is concerned. Under section 28 an appeal is to be regulated by the law for the time being in force. It is also an admitted position that such law, so far as the State of Maharashtra is concerned, is the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1969.Section 16 of the said Act reads as under: "16. The District Judge may refer to any Assistant Judge subordinate to him original suits of which the subject-matter does not amount to forty thousand rupees in amount or value, applications or references under special Acts and miscellaneous applications. The Assistant Judge shall have jurisdiction to try such suits and to dispose of such applications or references. The District Judge may refer to any Assistant Judge subordinate to him original suits of which the subject-matter does not amount to forty thousand rupees in amount or value, applications or references under special Acts and miscellaneous applications. The Assistant Judge shall have jurisdiction to try such suits and to dispose of such applications or references. Where the Assistant Judge's decrees and orders in such cases are appealable, the appeal shall lie to the District Judge or to the High Court according as the amount or value of the subject matter does not exceed or exceeds twenty-five thousand rupees." The words and expression "applications or references under the special Act" came to be inserted in section 16 of the Act later on. Under section 16 of the Act, applications or references under the Special Act, can be assigned by the District Judge to Assistant Judges. On such assignment or reference the Assistant Judge has jurisdiction to dispose of such applications. Section 3(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act defines the expression "District Court" in the following terms : "3(b) District Court' means, in any area for which there is a city Civil Court, that Court, and in any other area 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 this Act." Under section 19 of the said Act, a petition has to be presented to the District Court within the local limits of whose original civil jurisdiction the marriage was solemnized or respondent resides, or the parties to the marriage last resided etc., It is also an admitted position that no notification is issued under section 3(b) of the Act, so far as the Court of Assistant Judge is concerned. It is also not an independent civil Court of original jurisdiction Part V of the Bombay Civil Courts Act deals with Assistant Judges. Appointment of an Assistant Judge is contemplated to assist the District Judge. If an Assistant Judge is appointed as assistant to the District Judge, then it is quite obvious that he becomes part and parcel of the same Court. This seems to be the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Ambi Pundalik v. Pundalik Shankar. Appointment of an Assistant Judge is contemplated to assist the District Judge. If an Assistant Judge is appointed as assistant to the District Judge, then it is quite obvious that he becomes part and parcel of the same Court. This seems to be the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Ambi Pundalik v. Pundalik Shankar. Under the C.P. and Berar Courts Act, nomenclature and phraseology used was 'Additional District Judge' whereas in Bombay Civil Courts Act, the nomenclature and the phraseology used is 'Assistant Judge'. If the provisions of these two enactments are read together, it is quite obvious that the scheme of the Bombay Civil Courts Act and that of the C.P. and Berar Courts Act, so far as the present controversy is concerned, is identical. By bare reading of Chapter V of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, it is quite obvious that the Assistant Judge is part and parcel of the District Court. In the present case, the Assistant Judge has entertained the present Hindu marriage petition, in view of the order passed by the District Judge transferring the said Hindu marriage petition to him. No independent notification was ever issued under the Hindu Marriage Act empowering the Assistant Judge to deal with the Hindu marriage petition in his own right. Therefore, in our opinion, the Division Benches of this Court in Gangadhar v. Manjula, A.I.R. 1960 Bombay 42 and in Ambi Pundalik v. Pundalik Shankar, A.I.R. 1960 Bombay 521 were quite right in coming to the conclusion that whenever in a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act a decree is passed by a Court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), an appeal lies to the District Court and when a decree is passed by the Assistant Judge, then the appeal will lie to the High Court, since the Assistant Judge is part and parcel of the District Court. If the matter is decided by the Assistant Judge, the question of valuation is wholly irrelevant because for all practical purposes the petition is decided by the District Court itself. In this view of the matter, it will have to be held that the view taken by Mohata, J., in Bhaskar v. Meerabai is wholly untenable. In the view which we have taken therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the respondent-husband about the maintainability of the appeal must fail. 9. In this view of the matter, it will have to be held that the view taken by Mohata, J., in Bhaskar v. Meerabai is wholly untenable. In the view which we have taken therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the respondent-husband about the maintainability of the appeal must fail. 9. Since we have held that the appeal is maintainable, the papers and proceedings of this appeal be placed before the learned Single Judge for deciding the appeal on merits. However, in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs in this reference. -----