Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 665 (MP)

Vinita Rajput v. Deepak

2015-06-30

C.V.SIRPURKAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : C.V. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This civil revision seems to have been admitted by order dated 13.12.2013; however, IA No. 1300/2014 for condonation of delay of 2 years and 141 days in filing this civil revision, is still pending. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the application for condonation of delay. 3. For the reasons stated in the application for delay and for want of objection from the respondent, IA No. 1300/2014 is allowed and delay in filing this civil revision stands condoned. 4. As a short point is involved, this civil revision is heard finally be consent. 5. The facts necessary for disposal of this civil revision may briefly be stated thus: Respondent husband Deepak moved an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of Additional District Judge, Betul against the revision petitioner Vinita for restitution of conjugal rights. Wife Vinita filed an application before the learned lower Court under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act contending that learned Additional District Judge, Betul did not have territorial jurisdiction to try the case. This application was rejected by order dated 05.04.2011. Subsequently, husband Deepak amended his petition before the lower Court incorporating therein alternate relief for divorce, as well. Thereafter, wife Vinita moved another application under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act. This subsequent application was also dismissed by order dated 26.11.2012. The revision petitioner Vinita has challenged aforesaid two orders in this revision petition. 6. Having considered the rival contention and on perusal of the documents available on record, this Court is of the view that revision petition must succeed for the reasons hereinafter stated: Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 reads as follows:- 19. Court to which petition shall be presented. 6. Having considered the rival contention and on perusal of the documents available on record, this Court is of the view that revision petition must succeed for the reasons hereinafter stated: Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 reads as follows:- 19. Court to which petition shall be presented. "Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the district court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction" (i) the marriage was solemnized, or (ii) the respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition resides, or (iii) the parties to the marriage last resided together, or (iii-a) in case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition, or (iv) the petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where the respondent is, at that time, residing outside the territories to which this Act extends, or has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive. 7. A perusal of aforesaid provision makes it clear that firstly the petition under the Hindu Marriage Act may be presented where the District Court exercising jurisdiction over the place where the marriage was solemnized. It has been pleaded in the first paragraph of the petition filed before the learned lower Court by husband that the marriage between the parties was solemnized at Bhopal. Secondly, petition may be filed where the respondent, at the time of presentation of the petition, resides. It is admitted fact that at the time of presentation of the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, respondent Vinita was resident of Bhopal, as is evident from her address given in the cause title of the petition. Thirdly, such petition could be filed where parties to the marriage last resided together. It has been pleaded in paragraph No. 8 of the petition before the trial Court that the parties last resided together in a house belonging to the family of wife Vinita, which was situated in Kolar Road Area, Bhopal. Sub-sections (iii) (a) and (iv) of Section 19 are inapplicable to the present case. 8. It has been pleaded in paragraph No. 8 of the petition before the trial Court that the parties last resided together in a house belonging to the family of wife Vinita, which was situated in Kolar Road Area, Bhopal. Sub-sections (iii) (a) and (iv) of Section 19 are inapplicable to the present case. 8. In aforesaid circumstances, it is abundantly clear that the Court of District Judge at Betul, had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the respondent Deepak under Section 9 or 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. As such, orders dated 05.04.2011 and 26.11.2012 passed by the learned lower Court rejecting objection of wife Vinita to the territorial jurisdiction of that Court, are not sustainable and therefore, cannot be allowed to stand. 9. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of R.S. D.V. Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd., : AIR 1993 SC 2094 that where the Court arrives at a conclusion that it has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, proper order to pass is not dismissal of the suit but return thereof for presentation to proper Court. 10. Consequently, this civil revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 05.4.2011 passed by the Court of 1 st Additional District Judge, Betul in Civil Suit No. 2A/11 and order dated 26.11.2012 passed by 2 nd Additional District Judge, Betul in Civil Suit No. 79A/2012 are set aside. 11. Since it has been held by this Court that learned lower Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, learned lower Court is directed to return the petition to petitioner husband Deepak under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC, for being presented to proper Court. 12. This civil revision stands disposed of accordingly. 13. CC as per rules.