C. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) WIFE has preferred this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act aggrieved by Judgment and decree dated 15-11-1996 passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 101-A of 1987, whereby on the petition presented by the husband-respondent she dissolved the marriage between the parties performed in June 1979, by decree of divorce. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the husband he was married in the year 1979 and the marriage has taken place at Rewa according to Hindu rites. According to the husband, he is a permanent employee and resides at Government accommodation No. 82/91, South T. T. Nagar, Bhopal. According to the husband on 18-1-1982 his wife went to her parental home and in spite of several attempts to bring her to the matrimonial home, she did not come and accordingly he had no option than to seek dissolution of marriage. it has been further stated that earlier the husband got an ex parte decree for dissolution of marriage on 20-11-1987 and after that he married again another lady on 16-6-1990 and from this marriage he has got two children. It has been further stated by the husband that his wife is a free lancer and works in Child Development Department from where she gets regular pay and lives a comfortable life. ( 3 ) WIFE in the reply has stated that she never declined to carry out her marital obligation. Her further assertion is that she was never taken care of by her husband and she was treated with cruelty. It is the stand of the wife that her husband used to assault her and as her father is a fourth grade employee, he was not in a position to meet her husband's demand of Rs. 15,000/ -. According to the wife her husband stated that in case, she does not bring the aforesaid amount, she shall be set on fire by pouring kerosene oil. It has been stated by the wife in the reply that after the receipt of the news of the death of her father in law on 29-3-1987 she along with her father and father's sister (BUWA) went to Bhopal on 7-4-1987 and participated in the rituals as his wife. It has been stated that on 17-4-1987 her husband quarrelled with her father and threw him out from the home. It has been stated that on 17-4-1987 her husband quarrelled with her father and threw him out from the home. He further demanded a sum of Rs. 15,000/ -. Further stand of the wife is that her husband has married the second time in spite of the stay order passed by the Court. It is her assertion that now her father is dead and she is doing temporary job in Aangan Wadi scheme from where she is paid only Rs. 400/- per month, whereas her husband is a well to do person, getting salary of Rs. 3,500/- per month and she is entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed various issues including the issue as to whether respondent (wife) hasdeserted the applicant (husband) without reasonable cause for many years and whether the petition is maintainable ? On analysis of the evidence the learned Judge found that the wife deserted the husband without any reasonable cause and while considering the issue of maintainability of the petition, it has gone into the question of territorial jurisdiction and held that the petition is maintainable. ( 4 ) MRS. Sudharani Shrivastava, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the view taken by the learned Judge that it has jurisdiction to try the petition is erroneous. It is relevant here to state that in paragraph 4 of the petition, husband has stated that in the month of January 1982 he brought her along with him. In paragraph 5, he has stated that he is a permanent employee and lives at Government accommodation No. 82/91, South T. T. Nagar, Bhopal. ( 5 ) MRS. Shobha Menon, appearing on behalf of the husband, contends that comulative effect of the reading of the aforesaid paragraphs of the petition do show that the wife came to Bhopal in January 1982 and left on 18-1-1982 and, therefore, the wife having last resided together at Bhopal, Bhopal Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. I am afraid, the submission is absolutely devoid of any substance. Wife in the reply has clearly stated that she never lived with her husband at Bhopal and accordingly Bhopal Court had no territorial jurisdiction to hear the petition. I am afraid, the submission is absolutely devoid of any substance. Wife in the reply has clearly stated that she never lived with her husband at Bhopal and accordingly Bhopal Court had no territorial jurisdiction to hear the petition. True it is that in paragraph 4 the husband has stated that he brought his wife in January 1982 along with him, but he is awfully silent about the place where she was brought. Statement by husband in paragraph 5 of the petition that he is a permanent employee and lives in Government accommodation at Bhopal shall not by itself mean that the wife was brought to Bhopal. Rule 2 (4) of the Rules framed by the High Court in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 14 and 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, namely the Hindu Marriage (Madhya Pradesh Rules 1975) contemplates, petitioner, stating the principal address at which the parties to the marriage last resided together. The statement made in paragraph 4 and 5 of the petition does not in any way demonstrate that the husband and wife last resided together at Bhopal. ( 6 ) IT is settled law that the parties can lead evidence only on the facts pleaded and in the absence thereof no amount of evidence can be led on a fact not pleaded. However, when I come to the evidence of the parties, I find that it has not been established that the wife last resided together with her husband at Bhopal. Husband Arun Kumar Varma (PW 1) in paragraph 2 of his statement stated that in January 1982, he brought his wife to Bhopal as he was in service there. According to this witness she stayed there for 15-16 days and was sent to Rewa on 18-1-1982 when he heard about the news of the sickness of his mother. PW 2 (wrongly described as PW 1), Igasiya, mother of the husband stated that her son was married at Jabalpur and since last 10 to 15 years, he is doing his job at Bhopal and at that time the wife used to stay with him at village Patna in the district of Rewa. This witness is none but the mother of the husband and has not supported his case that the wife ever resided at Bhopal. This witness is none but the mother of the husband and has not supported his case that the wife ever resided at Bhopal. From the evidence of the husband itself, it is not established that the wife ever resided at Bhopal. Wife has stated in her evidence that she never resided at Bhopal. From the facts stated above, it is evident that there is no pleading that the wife ever resided at Bhopal or the same has been proved by evidence. ( 7 ) MRS. Menon, appearing for the husband, submits that the permanent place of abode of the husband is to be construed as a place where the parties last resided together. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Pushpa Datt v. Archana Mishra, 1992 MPLJ 466 : ( AIR 1992 MP 260 ), and my attention has been drawn to the following paragraph from the said judgment :-"understanding the words "last resided together" in the context of marriage relationship, one has to keep in mind that a Hindu wife, after the marriage, is expected to live with the husband at the place of the husband. The traditional concept of a Hindu wife is. The literal meaning is that she has always to be in company of the husband and to follow him wherever he goes. In the modern society, however, husband and wife both may seek service, gain employment and work at different places away from each other, but even in such cases, the marital home would be the place where the husband lives. The place where the wife is posted in service cannot be said to be her marital home. The place where the husband is posted can be, in my opinion, taken to be the marital home of the parties and a visit of the wife to that place can be taken to "be visit to the place of their residence". It is true that in this case, the wife is stated to have lived with the husband at Balod, when he was posted there for a brief period of 20 days. But, it is not the question of duration of that stay. The question is whether the place where the husband lives, can be said to be the place where they are expected to live together? But, it is not the question of duration of that stay. The question is whether the place where the husband lives, can be said to be the place where they are expected to live together? If that is the place where they last resided together, that would be sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court of that place. The place where the parents of the husband live or the place from which the husband hails cannot be said to be their matrimonial home or their place of residence. Even if the version of the wife is accepted that both of them lived together last at Buxwaha in the parental house of the husband in November 1985, it cannot be the place where they can be said to have, in law, last resided, within the meaning of Section 19 (iii) of the Act. The Court has not totally disbelieved the husband that the wife had lived with him in July, 1982 at Balod. But the lower Court has treated the spouses to have last resided together in the parental home at Buxwaha in Chhatarpur District. I also do not find any justification to take a contrary view and disbelieve the husband that the wife had come to live with him when he was posted at Balod in August, 1982. " (Underlining mine)In my opinion, even if the place where the husband is posted is taken to be the matrimonial home of the parties, this itself shall not confer jurisdiction on the Court which has territorial jurisdiction over that place. At this stage it is apt to refer to Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act which provides for the Court where the petition is required to be presented. This reads as follows :-"19. At this stage it is apt to refer to Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act which provides for the Court where the petition is required to be presented. This reads as follows :-"19. Court to which petition shall be presented.- Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the district Court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction- (i) the marriage was solemnized, or (ii) the respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition resides, or (iii) the parties to the marriage last resided together, or (iv) the petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where the respondent is, at that time, residing outside the territories to which this Act extends, or has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive. "for the purpose of conferring territorial jurisdiction it is not the place where the marital home is situated, but the place where the parties last resided together. In the case of Pushpa Datt ( AIR 1992 MP 260 ) (supra) itself, this Court has clearly stated that the place where they last resided together would be sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court of that place. Therefore, residing is sine-qua-non for conferring jurisdiction. This being lacking, even it is held that the marital home is at Bhopal, as observed by this Court in the case of Pushpa Datta ( AIR 1992 MP 260 ) (supra) the same will not confer jurisdiction to Bhopal Court. ( 8 ) AS a last straw Mrs. Menon submits that in the present case the local limits of jurisdiction of Court being uncertain, the petition was rightly entertained by the Bhopal Court, in view of Section 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. She contends that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure being applicable in relation to all the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, recourse to Section 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be taken into consideration. I am afraid, the submission of the learned counsel is devoid of substance for more than one reason. Section 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure is attracted only when the local limits of jurisdiction of Court are uncertain. Here this is not the position. I am afraid, the submission of the learned counsel is devoid of substance for more than one reason. Section 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure is attracted only when the local limits of jurisdiction of Court are uncertain. Here this is not the position. Secondly, Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act contemplates of regulation of the proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act as far as may be by the Code of Civil Procedure. However the application of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code has been made subject to the other provisions of the Act. Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as follows :-"21. Application of Act 5 of 1908.- 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. "a plain reading of the aforesaid section makes it abundantly clear that the application of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure is subject to the other provisions contained in the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for the place where the petition is to be presented. In that view of the matter provision of Section 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be pressed into service. I negative this submission of Mrs. Menon. ( 9 ) RESULT of the aforesaid discussion leads me to conclude that Bhopal Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the petition. In the result, the appeal is allowed with cost. The impugned judgment and decree are set aside. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000/ -. However, the husband shall not be precluded from bringing fresh action before the Court of competent jurisdiction, on same set of facts in accordance with law. Appeal allowed. .