ORDER : K.M. THAKER, J. ORDER IN FIRST APPEAL 1. Heard Mr.Majmudar, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr.Mokaria, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. In present appeal, the appellant has challenged judgment and order dated 24.7.2018 passed by the learned Family Court at Godhra, District: Panchmahals in Hindu Marriage Petition No.31 of 2017. 3. The said judgment is challenged on various grounds, however, essentially the principal and major ground of challenge is on the premise that while deciding the issue about jurisdiction of the court to entertain the family suit and while holding that in light of the provisions under Section 19 of the Hindu marriage Act, the Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the learned trial Court also decided other issues on merits and has recorded findings, on merits, in respect of other issues. 4. The appellant contends that when the Court reached the conclusion that it does not have jurisdiction to decide the suit, other issues could not and should not have been decided on merits and any finding on merits with reference to other issues should not have been recorded. 5. Learned advocate for the respondent had appeared when the Court heard and considered Civil Application No.1 of 2018 seeking condonation of delay in filing present appeal. 6. The said application came to be allowed vide order dated 28.1.2019. 7. In pursuance of the said order, present appeal came to be listed for hearing and appropriate order. 8. In that view of the matter, learned advocate for the respondent has appeared for the hearing of present appeal as well and he submitted that the respondent has instructed him to represent her in present appeal as well. Learned advocate for the respondent also submitted that he will file his appearance for the purpose of present appeal, on or before 27.2.2019. In view of the said submission, statement and assurance by learned advocate for the respondent, we have heard learned advocate for present respondent. 9. In that view of the matter and having regard to the contentions raised by the appellant against impugned judgment, we are of the view that the appeal deserves consideration. Therefore, we admit the appeal. 10. Learned advocate for the respondent has waived service of process of admission of the appeal and with his consent, the appeal is heard for final order. 11. Therefore, we admit the appeal. 10. Learned advocate for the respondent has waived service of process of admission of the appeal and with his consent, the appeal is heard for final order. 11. From the record, it has emerged that present appellant filed suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and prayed for decree of divorce. The suit came to be registered as Family Suit No.31 of 2017. 12. In the said suit proceedings, the learned Family Court framed below mentioned issues: “1. Whether the applicant proves that the respondent-wife has willfully neglect and refuse the matrimonial house of applicant? 2. Whether the applicant proves that this court has jurisdiction to try this application? 3. Whether the respondent proves that the applicant has refuse and neglect her? 4. Whether the applicant is entitled to get remedy as prayed for? 5. What order and decree?” 13. It has emerged that though the learned Family Court framed Issue No.2 with regard to its jurisdiction, which obliged the Court to decide as to whether the appellant can maintain the suit before the Court and the said Family Court at Godhra would have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the said suit, the learned Family Court did not decide the said issue as preliminary issue and instead, the learned trial Court heard entire suit on merits and preferred to decide all issues together. 14. Not only this, but the learned Tribunal proceeded to decide Issue Nos.1, 3 and 4 on merits. 15. On reading impugned judgment and order dated 24.7.2018, it emerges that under paragraph No.9 of the judgment, the learned trial Court has considered and decided Issue Nos.1, 3 and 4 on merits and recorded findings against present appellant. 16. The learned Family Court, then, decided Issue No.2. 17. Interestingly, the learned Court recorded finding that it does not have jurisdiction to decide the said suit. 18. According to learned advocate for the appellant, the said findings with respect to Issue Nos.1, 3 and 4 on one hand and the conclusions with regard to Issue No.2 are contradictory and when the Court agrees and accepts that there is want of jurisdiction, it could not have decided other issues on merits. 19. Learned advocate for the respondent could not counter or oppose the said submission. 20. 19. Learned advocate for the respondent could not counter or oppose the said submission. 20. We also find merits in the said contention inasmuch as on one hand the learned Family Court has recorded that the suit is not maintainable before the Family Court at Godhra and the Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit, whereas on the other hand, the learned Family Court in the same breath and by the same order has also decided Issue Nos.1, 3 and 4 on merits. 21. In this view of the matter, the judgment and order cannot be sustained. 22. The proceedings are required to be remanded to the learned trial Court for fresh decision. 23. Therefore, following order is passed. 24. The judgment and order dated 24.7.2018 is set aside and the proceeding of Family Suit No.31 of 2017 is remanded to learned Family Court at Godhra. The learned Family Court shall decide Issue No.2 as preliminary issue after granting opportunity to both sides and pass fresh order in accordance with law. 25. In light of the fact that the observations and findings by the learned trial Court with regard to Issue Nos.1, 3 and 4 are recorded despite the fact that the learned Court has reached to the conclusion that it does not have jurisdiction, the said findings also cannot be sustained and they deserve to be set aside. Accordingly, the said findings are also set aside. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION In view of the order passed in the main appeal, the application does not survive and the same stands disposed of.