JUDGMENT R.B. Deo, J. - Applicant 1 is assailing the order dated 28.8.2021, rendered by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Gondia, in Hindu Marriage Petition 71/2020, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to reject the application preferred by the petitioner 1-husband under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The application seeking rejection of plaint was preferred on the ground of absence of territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the Hindu Marriage Petition filed by the wife. 3. Perusal of the petition filed by the wife seeking dissolution of marriage and custody of minor child reveals that the wife has asserted that she is residing at Gondia with her elder sister. The wife contends that she is compelled to reside with her elder sister in the absence of sufficient means for survival. 4. It would be apposite to note the provisions of section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which read thus: 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.] 5. The legislative intent underlying section 19(iii-a) is to avoid the hardship to the wife, and to make available a forum at the place of her current residence. 6. The learned Judge, while rejecting the application has noted the statutory provisions, and has rightly observed that the wife, who is residing with her sister at Gondia, is entitled to approach the Court at Gondia. 7. Mr. 6. The learned Judge, while rejecting the application has noted the statutory provisions, and has rightly observed that the wife, who is residing with her sister at Gondia, is entitled to approach the Court at Gondia. 7. Mr. S.S. Shingane, the learned counsel would however submit, relying on the decision of Sondur Rajini vs. Sondur Gopal, 2005(4) Mh.L.J. 688 that a temporary residence will not entitle the wife to approach the Court having jurisdiction over the place of temporary residence. The submission need not detain me since there is absolutely nothing on record to assume that the residence is temporary. 8. The application is sans merit and is dismissed.