JUDGMENT 1. - The respondent-Harish Kumar preferred a petition for divorce against the petitioner on the count of mental cruelty. A reply to the same was filed by the petitioner and on basis of available pleadings, the trial Court framed three issues. 2. In light of the evidence came on record, an application was filed by the present petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5, C.P.C., to frame an additional issue with regard to the jurisdiction of District judge, Sriganganagar to entertain the petition. As per the petitioner, the respondent during his cross-examination stated that he alongwith present petitioner last resided at Bombay, as such, the jurisdiction to adjudicate divorce petition is not available to the Court at Sriganganagar. Learned Court below dismissed the application on the count of averment contained in para No. 2 of the divorce petition, that reads as under: " ;g fd i{kdkju dk fookg eqrkfcd fgUnq jhfr fjokt dkSe esa izpfyr fjoktksa ds vuqlkj nksuksa ds ca/kq cka/koksa ds le{k fnukad 6-12-2001 dks jkoyk rglhy ?kM+lkuk ftyk Jhxaxkuxj esa lEiUu gqvk rFkk fookg ds mijkar mRrjoknh vkosnd ds ?kj nso dkWyksuh ukFkokyk 2 ,e0,y0 rglhy xaxkuxj esa crkSj iRuh lkFk jgdj lgokl o lgp;Z iznku djus yxh rFkk vafre ckj Hkh blh LFkku ij lgokl o lgp;Z fd;k x;kA " 3. Learned trial Court also relied upon the order dated 26.5,2008 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Transfer Petition No. 14/2008, wherein this Court observed that "It is not the case of the petitioner that the Court at Sriganganagar has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter." 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that now in view of the statement given by the respondent himself about last place of residence, the trial Court should have framed the additional issue. 5. I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. 6. The petitioner has accepted that the marriage took place at Ghadsana and subsequent thereto, she was residing at Nathwala with the respondent, as such, the trial Court rightly arrived at the conclusion about jurisdiction and, thus, refused to frame the additional issue pertaining to jurisdiction. No error is committed by the learned Court below that may warrant interference of this Court while exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition for writ is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******