Judgment 1. Heard both the parties. 2. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 26.11.1999 passed by the District Judge, Buxar, in Matrimonial Suit no. 7 of 1999 whereby and whereunder prayer made from the side of the defendant-petitioner that the District Judge, Buxar, had no jurisdiction to entertain the Matrimonial case has been rejected. 3. There is a chequered history of the case. Admittedly, both the parties are married spouses. For some differences between the two, they live apart. Then there was a petition by the opposite party-husband for restituting the conjugal right as contemplated under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In that proceeding the present petitioner had raised objection regarding jurisdiction of the court at Buxar. Jurisdiction was contemplated by the petitioner as per Section 13 of the Act to the effect that both the spouses had last resided together in the matrimonial home at Buxar. That fact was attempted to be denied from the side of the petitioner. But in that proceeding such objection raised by the petitioner was rejected and then decree for restitution of conjugal right was granted in favour of the opposite party although ex parte and it is stated at the Bar that against such ex parte decree a First Appeal is pending before this Court. The same objection has now been raised when the above- mentioned matrimonial case was filed after lapse of a year of the decree for restitution of the conjugal right for the purpose of granting divorce. 4. Learned court below has rightly rejected the prayer as the same had also been rejected earlier. But, in my opinion, the whole thing depends on the factual aspect. The plaintiff-opposite party has claimed that the spouses had lived together at Buxar which fact has been denied from the side of the petitioner. Whether the spouses resided last together at Buxar in the matrimonial home or not is a factual aspect which can be thrashed out at the time of trial itself. 5. In that view of the matter, this revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the court below to keep the point of jurisdiction be open to be thrashed out at the time of trial and any observation made in the order dated 26.11.1999 shall not be prejudicial to either of the parties or to the court itself.