Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1294 (PNJ)

Achla Khanna v. Rohit Khanna

2014-09-16

INDERJIT SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.:- Achla Khanna-petitioner has filed this civil revision petition against Rohit Khanna-respondent under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 10.10.2012 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, holding that the Court at Jalandhar has jurisdiction to try the divorce petition, the same being against law and facts and suffers from material irregularity and illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction. 2. Notice of motion was issued in this petition. The respondent put in appearance through counsel and contested this petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 4. From the record, I find that Rohit Khanna-husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against Mrs. Achla Khanna-wife. An application was filed by Achla Khanna-wife claiming that the Court at Jalandhar has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. This fact is clear from the pleadings of the husband. 5. The husband contested this application and stated that his permanent address is House No.470, Guru Gobind Singh Avenue, Jalandhar. Even the respondent (petitioner herein) left the matrimonial home from Jalandhar. These facts are admitted in para 6 at page 10 of the written statement. Earlier petition filed under Section 9 of the Act was also decided by the Court at Jalandhar on 15.12.2010. The objection raised by the applicant-petitioner herein is false and frivolous. 6. The learned Additional District Judge, vide order dated 10.10.2012 dismissed the application by holding that the Court at Jalandhar has jurisdiction. It is in the order that Rohit Khanna is permanent resident of House No.470, Guru Gobind Singh Avenue, Jalandhar, whereas Achla Khanna belongs to Amritsar. Marriage was performed on 11.7.2007 at Amritsar. The permanent address of the husband is shown at Jalandhar. It was the case of the petitioner-husband that both the parties resided together at Jalandhar and thereafter they had gone to Gurgaon, where the husband was posted at the relevant time. It was pleaded that the respondent-wife had left the matrimonial house from Jalandhar and it is also matter of record that their petition under Section 9 of the Act was also decided at Jalandhar. It was pleaded that the respondent-wife had left the matrimonial house from Jalandhar and it is also matter of record that their petition under Section 9 of the Act was also decided at Jalandhar. It was also specifically mentioned in para 6 at page 8 of the written statement that she lastly resided with her husband in their permanent house at Jalandhar and from there she had gone to Amritsar. 7. From the perusal of the petition (Annexure-P.2), which is a petition for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Act filed by Rohit Khanna against his wife Achla Khanna, it is clear that the marriage took place at Amritsar on 11.7.2007. From the head note of the petition, it is also clear that Achla Khanna resides at Amritsar. As per para 3 of the petition, the respondent-husband lived at Jalandhar in his parental house for few days and thereafter left for Gurgaon and both resided their upto 1.5.2009. It is also in the petition that on 1.5.2009, both came to Jalandhar and the wife without any reason or cause started misbehaving, abusing the parents of the husband. When the husband tried to stop her from using filthy language, she became violent and came outside the house and gave beatings to the husband, his mother and his old grand-father. On 1.5.2009, the wife left the house of the husband’s parents without the permission of the respondent or his family members. Therefore, in view of the averments of the husband himself in the divorce petition, the marriage took place at Amritsar and after the marriage they resided for some days at the parental house at Jalandhar and thereafter, they left for Gurgaon and both resided there upto 1.5.2009. The marriage took place on 11.7.2007, which means that both the parties resided and cohabited together at Gurgaon lastly. They have not lastly resided and cohabited together at Jalandhar. The only plea is that on 1.5.2009 both of them have come to Jalandhar at parent’s house of the husband Rohit Khanna from where on the same day, the wife left the house or turned out from the house. Therefore, in no way, from the pleadings, it can be held that they lastly resided and cohabited at Jalandhar. The only plea is that on 1.5.2009 both of them have come to Jalandhar at parent’s house of the husband Rohit Khanna from where on the same day, the wife left the house or turned out from the house. Therefore, in no way, from the pleadings, it can be held that they lastly resided and cohabited at Jalandhar. Therefore, neither the marriage took place at Jalandhar nor the parties lastly resided and cohabited together at Jalandhar nor the petitionerwife is residing at Jalandhar. 8. Therefore, the Court at Jalandhar has no territorial jurisdiction to file this case. The mere fact that petition under Section 9 of the Act has been decided at Jalandhar, will not give cause of action or territorial jurisdiction to the Court at Jalandhar. The mere fact that the petitioner’s permanent address is at Jalandhar or his parents are residing at Jalandhar is also no ground to file the divorce petition at Jalandhar. Therefore, the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the divorce petition. The findings of the learned Additional District Judge that in the written statement it is admitted that they resided lastly at Jalandhar is also incorrect. When the respondent himself saying that on 1.5.2009 they came from Gurgaon and on that very day, the petitioner-wife left the house, then in no way, it can be held that the parties resided together lastly at Jalandhar. 9. Further more, as regards the petition under Section 9 of the Act, it is stated in the written statement that the petitioner-wife has no knowledge of any petition having been filed or the same having already been decided by the Court on 15.12.2010. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife placed reliance on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Pushpa Datt Mishra v. Archana Mishra alias Premvati Choubey, AIR 1992 MP 260 , in which it is held that 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 both of them lived together last at the parental house of the husband, 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. Even if both of them lived together last at the parental house of the husband, 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. I have gone through the law laid down in this judgment, which fully applies to the facts in the present case. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Jeewanti Pandey v. Kishan Chandra Pandey, AIR 1982 SC 3 , in which also it is held that the parties originally belonged to Village Almora and their marriage was performed at Delhi and were residing there. Petition for nullity of marriage under Section 12 filed at Almora, it was held, that the Court of District Judge, Almora would have no jurisdiction to try the petition. The order was set aside. I have gone through the law laid down in this judgment, which fully applies to the facts of the present case. 12. Therefore, from the above discussion, I find that the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar is incorrect and not as per law and the same is, therefore, set aside. 13. Finding merit in the civil revision petition, the same is allowed and the application filed by the petitioner that the Court at Jalandhar has no jurisdiction is accepted. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ------------------