At the time of admission of this appeal Mr. P. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant raised two substantial questions of law. Both the questions of law were formulated on 22.9.82 by this Court. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that if the first ques­tion of law as formulated is disposed of in favour of the appellant, the second point may not be required for considera­tion. The first substantial question of law in this appeal is as to whether the suit of the plaintiff was maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ? To appreciate the submission of Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant, a little bit of discussion on the facts of the case would be necessary. 2. The respondent is the husband of the appellant. As plaintiff, the respondent brought a suit being Title Suit No. 95 of 1980 in the court of the learned Sadar Munsiff No. 2, Cachar at Silchar for a declaration that the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant be declared as void and also for further relief that the decree arising out of Cass No. 5 of 1974 was not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff challenged the marriage between him and the defendant and as such approached the Munsiff by way of a suit. The appellant/defendant appeared in the suit and filed written statement denying the contentions made by the plaintiff in the plaint. The defendant also challenged the jurisdicton of the Munsiff to try the suit. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Munsiff framed as many as 5 issues out of which Issue No. 2 was most relevant which is also subject-matter for consideration in this appeal in­volving the substantial question as formulated by this Court, The parties adduced evidence oral as well as documentary in the trial court. The learned munsiff, however decreed the suit of the plaintiff as against which the defendant preferred an appeal in the court of the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Cachar at Silchar. The learned appellate court did not find any material to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and, as such, affirmed the same. This appeal is against the said judgment and decree of the learned appellate court. 3. Mr. The learned appellate court did not find any material to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and, as such, affirmed the same. This appeal is against the said judgment and decree of the learned appellate court. 3. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant while can­vassing the first point of law as formulated in this appeal, has submitted before me very correctly that though the plaintiff was given liberty to approach the Civil Court by the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 186/76 if the plaintiff fails aggrieved by the order passed in the maintenance case, it did not certainly mean the Munsiff's Court. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention the provisions of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 19 prescribes the jurisdiction and procedure of a ease instituted under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act. Section 19 runs as follows : "19. Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the district court within the local limits of whose or­iginal civil jurisdiction the marriage was solemnized or the husband and wife reside or last resided together". 4. On bare perusal of the provisions of Section 19 of the Act as quoted above it appears that a petition under any of the provisions of Hindu marriage Act shall have to be presented to the District Court having the original local limits and having ordinary civil jurisdiction. It is only the district court as de­fined in Section 3(b) of the Act that has jurisdiction to entertain and try the matters arising under this Act. This Section regulates the venue and lays down that any petition under this Act either for judicial separation or divorce or for a declaration of marriage as void or nullity, shall have to be presented to be district court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction the marriage was solemnized or the husband and wife reside or last resided together. Section 3(b) of the Act defines the district court. Section 3(b) of the Act defines the district court. The "district court" as defined 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." The expression "district" as defined in Section 2(4) of the Civil Procedure Code means, "the local limits of the jurisdic­tion of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction (hereinafter called the 'District Court'), and includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court." On simple reading of the definition of the district court in the light of the provisions as laid down under section 19 of the Act, it is clear that the district court is the court of princi­pal civil court of original jurisdiction and includes the court of District Judge and also the city civil court which may be speci­fied by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette to have the jurisdiction in respect of the matters dealt with in the Act. Section 3 of the Civil Procedure Code speaks about the subordinate courts which runs as follows : "3. Subordination of Courts. - For the purposes of the Code, the District Court is subordinate to the High Court and every Civil Court of a grade inferior to that of a District Court and every Court of Small Causes is subor­dinate to the High Court and District Court. Section 3 of CPC gives a clear indication that every civil court is of a grade inferior to that of a District Court and every court of small Causes is subordinate to the High Court and District Court. 5. The learned courts below wrongly interpreted the direction issued by this Court. Though liberty was granted to the plain­tiff to seek redress in the Civil Court it meant that 'Civil Court' having jursidiction to try the dispute between the parties. In that view of the matter and without entering into the merit of the case I am constrained to hold that the Munsiff Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Though liberty was granted to the plain­tiff to seek redress in the Civil Court it meant that 'Civil Court' having jursidiction to try the dispute between the parties. In that view of the matter and without entering into the merit of the case I am constrained to hold that the Munsiff Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned Munsiff ought to have returned the plaint to the plaintiff to be presented to the forum in view of the provisions of Section 19 of the Act. Though the party raised this issue, the said issue was wrongly decided by the trial court and also wrongly upheld by the learned appellate court below. The jurisdiction to deal in any matter under the Act rests with the District Court. District Court is tie only competent authority to entertain the petition or the plain of the plaintiff in this case. For the reasons set forth above, I set aside the judgment and decree of learned courts below. The learned Munsiff shall return the plaint to the plaintiff or to his learned counsel with a proper endorsement to that effect so that the plaintiff may present it in the district court for further progress of the case. With this direction, the appeal is allowed and the case is finally disposed of. There will be no order as to cost. If the petition or the plaint is filed, the District Judge shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible as because the parties have spent sufficiently long time in both the courts below.