JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 2.4.2010 whereby the learned District judge, Sikar in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 3/2009 dismissed the application filed by petitioner under Order 14, Rule 5 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code 2. The facts, in nub, are that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent on 29.6.2001 in District Jhunjhunu. Thereafter some dispute arose between the parties and the respondent wife started living in Kishan Colony, Sikar w.e.f. September, 2008. The respondent-wife filed a petition seeking divorce before the District Judge, Sikar on the ground of cruelty. Vide order dated 10.1.2010, the Court below framed the issues on the basis of pleadings on record. The husband-petitioner moved an application under Order 14, Rule 5 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code imploring to frame the additional issue with regard to jurisdiction. The learned Court below rejected the application of the petitioner- husband on the ground that as per the amendment made in Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 effective from 23.12.2003, the wife could present a petition seeking divorce at the place where she was living at the time of presenting the petition. Since the respondent-wife, at the time of presenting the petition seeking divorce, was living in Sikar, which was not denied by the husband-petitioner in his reply, as such the application filed by the husband under Order 14, Rule 5 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code was not found to be tenable and the same was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that after marriage, the petitioner as also the respondent never resided in Sikar, as such the learned District Judge, Sikar had no authority to hear and decide the divorce petition, but the learned District Judge, Sikar did not consider this aspect of the matter and arbitrarily rejected his application. 4. Having ruminated over the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is noticed that on 10.1.2010, the issues were framed on the basis of pleadings of the parties available on record. Thereafter the case was posted for evidence on 18.2.2010. 4. Having ruminated over the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is noticed that on 10.1.2010, the issues were framed on the basis of pleadings of the parties available on record. Thereafter the case was posted for evidence on 18.2.2010. However, with a view to procrastinate the trial of the suit, the husband-petitioner moved the application under Order 14, Rule 5 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code It is further noticed that in para No. 7 of the petition filed under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent-wife clearly mentioned that she is residing at Kishan Colony, Sikar since September, 2008, but this fact was not denied by the petitioner-husband in his reply and in view of the amendment made in Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the learned Court below very rightly dismissed the application as the application was found to be totally devoid of any substance. The impugned order is found to be just and proper and the same suffers from no infirmity. 5. In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed at the threshold and it stands dismissed accordingly.Petition dismissed. *******