AMITAVA LALA, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff instituted the suit in the form of an application under S. 10 or S. 23 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 whichever will be applicable in the present case. ( 2 ) THE cause of making such alternative relief is that the husband/petitioner made out case of adultery as well as physical and mental cruelty or desertion simultaneously as against the wife. ( 3 ) THE petitioner/husband served a notice of making this application and filed the Affidavit-of-Service along with other incidental papers to establish that service was effected upon the respondent. In addition thereto, he produced a certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar, Original Side of this Court wherefrom it appears that the respondent did not appear either in person or by Advocate. Let the Affidavit-of-Service and other incidental papers along with the Certificate issued by the concerned Deputy Registrar be kept with the record. ( 4 ) SINCE no denial was there, I was inclined to proceed on the basis of Order 8, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure but Mr. K. S. Roy, learned Senior Counsel with the able assistance of Ms. Swapna Mukherjee learned counsel appearing with him, contended that in view of the circumstances particularly when the husband has brought certain charges of adultery as well as cruelty and desertion against wife, there should be witness action to bring the real picture before the Court for the ends of justice. This Court appreciated the stand taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and I directed for witness action. ( 5 ) THE plaintiff/petitioner/husband was examined at length. I am satisfied with the documentary evidence and oral evidences adduced by him. All the exhibits were marked save and except the Cassette and the transcripted part of the tape conversation in support of that cassette without being satisfied with the legal position to that extent. ( 6 ) MR. Roy at length argued on that score by saying that there is no question about the admissibility of the tape recorder as evidence. But that being the primary question, the transcript could be used to show that the transcriber had found the same as recorded there at the time of transcription. This operated as a check against tampering. They could be used as a corroborative evidence. But that being the primary question, the transcript could be used to show that the transcriber had found the same as recorded there at the time of transcription. This operated as a check against tampering. They could be used as a corroborative evidence. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment reported in AIR 1975 SC 1788 (Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdas Mehra ). ( 7 ) UPON being satisfied, I have called upon the witness to operate the machinery made for the purpose to check the transcription which was done in camera before this Court. I am satisfied with such operation of mechanism to prove the case and now such documents are exhibited as "e" collectively. ( 8 ) AFTER the witness action of the petitioner/husband is over, I called upon 'zubin' only son out of their wedlock, who was about 15 years old, to interrogate him personally when he frankly confessed about many aspects of the behaviour and attitude of his mother which goes straight against the respondent/mother. Since son's statement before me was balancing factor, I was not very much inclined to put him in the box for asking any question considering his age. But then Mr. Roy cited a Division Bench judgment reported in AIR 1959 Calcutta 306 (Purna Chandra Khandra v. State) to establish that the question of the capacity of the witness to testify is a question for the Judge himself to decide on the basis of the intellectual capacity and rational account irrespective of the age. ( 9 ) BEING satisfied with the argument I allowed the son to be examined as witness. Even in the examination he has supported the contentions of his father. The way the tender aged boy "zubin" adduced his evidence even volunteered against his mother, this Court has no other alternative but to observe that the situation of the society is alarming so far as the matrimonial relationships are concerned. There is no occasion for the Court to disbelieve the truth coming out of the witness action. ( 10 ) UNDER the circumstances, I have no hesitation in my mind but to hold in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. ( 11 ) MR. Roy further cited a judgmentreported in AIR 1975 SC 1534 (Dr. N. G. Dastane v. Mrs. There is no occasion for the Court to disbelieve the truth coming out of the witness action. ( 10 ) UNDER the circumstances, I have no hesitation in my mind but to hold in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. ( 11 ) MR. Roy further cited a judgmentreported in AIR 1975 SC 1534 (Dr. N. G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane) to establish that there is no necessity to prove the cruelty but a cause of reasonable apprehension in his mind that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent is enough, for the purpose of drawing an inference by the Court in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, both factual and legal position in respect of the case is crystal clear before the Court in holding an observation in favour of the petitioner. ( 12 ) AT the time of argument a further question arose that the respondent/wife instituted two suits i. e. for divorce and for maintenance in the Courts of Kerala prior to the institution of this suit. Therefore, according to me, the suit for divorce as instituted by the respondent-wife prior to institution of this suit for divorce by the husband implies that she has no objection as to the passing a decree for divorce in favour of the petitioner-husband. ( 13 ) THEREFORE, only remaining question is about competency of the Court. According to Sections 3 (3), 10 and 23 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, the proper Court would be District Court whereunder both the parties last resided together and in furtherance both the High Court and the District Court are having concurrent jurisdiction in respect of the subject-matter. Therefore, since both of them resided last in Calcutta within ordinary jurisdiction and since the respondent-wife left finally the matrimonial home leaving aside the petitioner/husband and the minor son "zubin" on 12th May, 1995 with her bag and baggage, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain, try and determine the suit or application. Moreover, in view of the Special Jurisdiction under the Act itself concept of 'ordinary original civil jurisdiction' cannot be applicable herein. ( 14 ) SO far the maintenance part is concerned, there is hardly any scope of maintenance suit in the eye of law. Moreover, in view of the Special Jurisdiction under the Act itself concept of 'ordinary original civil jurisdiction' cannot be applicable herein. ( 14 ) SO far the maintenance part is concerned, there is hardly any scope of maintenance suit in the eye of law. Be that as it may, other suits for divorce as well as for maintenance have got hardly any matter in staying hands of this Court in proceeding with the same when jurisdiction was properly invoked. ( 15 ) IN the premises having taken all accounts for the purpose of the disposal of the suit I hereby pass the following orders. There will be decree in terms of prayer (a ). There will be no order as to costs. The decree will be drawn up expeditiously. Order accordingly.