Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 685 (ORI)

GOURANGA CHANDRA DAS v. ZEENA DAS

2015-12-07

B.RATH

body2015
ORDER B. Rath, J. - Heard Ms. J. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Panigraphi, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This matter arises against an order dated 19.11.1999 passed by the Judge Family Court, Rourkela in C.P. No. 75 of 1999, a challenge by the husband on the territorial jurisdiction of the court. 3. After closure of the evidence, petitioner-husband filed the petition stating that the marriage so also last place of residence is at village Lakshmipur, P.O.-Gabardanga, P.S.-Hawarha, Dist-24-Praganas (North), West Bengal an application under the premises is not maintainable at Rourkela. 4. This petition was contested by the opposite party-wife on the premises that since the present is an application under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, the cause of action having arisen on the birth of the child at Rourkela and their claim on the premises of the resident of the wife at Rourkela, the cause of action for the case arose at Rourkela. The case is very much maintainable in the court at Rourkela. Further said application was also challenged on the premises that the suit having progressed till the end of evidence from the side of the petitioner such an application at this end of the trial, is not maintainable at that stage. 5. Hearing the respective parties, the trial court taking into consideration the submissions made by the parties as well as the citations cited at the bar on the provision of the Hindu Marriage Act as well as Hindu Marriage and Adoption Act, 1958, rejected the application at the instance of the husband on 13.10.1999. Hence the present writ petition. In assailing the impugned order apart from reiterating the grounds taken in the court below, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that since there has been no cause of action involved in the matter at Rourkela, the dispute is not maintainable in the court of Judge Family Court, Rourkela. 6. Mr. Panigraphi, learned counsel for Opp. Party apart from reiterating the stand taken in the court below submitted that the cause of action having taken place at Rourkela, the case is very much maintainable in the court of Judge Family Court, Rourkela. Further such an application is also not maintainable at the fag end of the proceeding when the evidence from the side of the applicant was already over. Further such an application is also not maintainable at the fag end of the proceeding when the evidence from the side of the applicant was already over. Further the petitioner having submitted to the jurisdiction of the court till end of recording of evidence has no authority to raise the question of jurisdiction at this stage and such attempt is only to linger the proceeding and harass the applicant-wife and minor children. For the pendency of the proceeding till now the husband has already succeeded in his such attempt. 7. It appears that the application at the instance of the opposite party was filed under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. On my query to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is fairly submitted that the wife is residing at Rourkela and given birth to a male child at Rourkela who is also a party to the C.P. No. 75 of 1999. The application was filed under Section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, as well as Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1958 praying therein for a direction to the present petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 4500/- P.M to the petitioner and sum of Rs. 1000/- P.M only to the petitioner No. 2 through his mother guardian. Even though the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. 1956 did not make any specific provision with regard to the jurisdiction of the court but considering that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure in the matter regarding institution of suit are applicable in the present circumstances. Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code comes into play which reads as follows: 20. Even though the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. 1956 did not make any specific provision with regard to the jurisdiction of the court but considering that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure in the matter regarding institution of suit are applicable in the present circumstances. Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code comes into play which reads as follows: 20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.- Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- (a) The defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the Suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. 8. Reading of the above, particularly the provision as contained in Section 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, it is observed that the suits be instituted in the court where the cause of action wholly or in part, arises. 9. In a case between (ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and another v. A.P. Agencies, Salem) reported in AIR 1989 S.C. 1239 , Hon'ble Apex Court held a cause of action means every fact which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, in order to support his right to a judgment of the court and it must include some act done by the defendants since in absence of such an act, no cause of action can possibly accrues. Similarly in another decisions in the case of Narayan Nanda v. Sankar Sahu as reported in 41(1975) CLT 571 this Court held cause of action means bundle of essential facts which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove before he can succeed in the suit. 10. Similarly in another decisions in the case of Narayan Nanda v. Sankar Sahu as reported in 41(1975) CLT 571 this Court held cause of action means bundle of essential facts which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove before he can succeed in the suit. 10. Considering the submission of the parties and taking into consideration the citations indicated herein above, this Court finds that in the present case, cause of action for the opposite parties since arose at Rourkela, this Court is of the view that the Judge Family Court, Rourkela has jurisdiction to decide the matter and under the circumstances, this Court finds the trial court did no wrong in rejecting the application at the instance of the husband. Consequently, this Court declines to interfere in the impugned order and dismiss the writ petition accordingly. However since this matter pending since 1999, this Court directs the Judge Family Court, Rourkela to dispose of the dispute within a period of three months from the date of production of this order and both parties are directed to appear in the Court below on 21.12.2015 with the certified copy of order of this Court. 11. The writ application stands dismissed but however with the observation and direction made herein above. Final Result : Dismissed