Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 425 (AP)

V. Butchi Babu v. Borra Veeramalla Sai Durga

2025-03-07

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2025
ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the Docket order dated 07.08.2024 passed in H.M.O.P. SR.No.3030 of 2024 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kovvur (for short “the trial Court”). 2. The present impugned HMOP (SR) No.3030 of 2024 was filed by the petitioner/husband on the file of the trial Court for divorce against the respondent/wife under Section 13 (1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act , 1956. 3. The facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was performed on 22.08.2021 at Sri Umachandrasekhara Swamy-Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple at Chikkala village of Chagallu Mandal as per Hindu religion rites and customs. The petitioner is working in Dubai. From the beginning the respondent/wife states that she is not willing for the marriage with the petitioner but she agreed for the marriage on the pressure of her parent only. The petitioner informed to the respondent that he will return within three months but due to work pressure and non availability of permission he is unable to return India within three months. After one week of the marriage, the respondent left to her parent’s house. Thereafter, when the petitioner returned to India, he requested the respondent to join with him at Chikkala, but the parents of the respondent raised dispute before the elders and gave a false complaint before Undi police Station. Then the police admonished the respondent and her parents. The respondent voluntarily deserted the petitioner and neglected him without any fault of him. Since March 2022, both the petitioner and the respondent are living separately without any conjugal life. It is stated that the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty and caused lot of mental agony and also deserted him and that there are no chances for reunion between the petitioner and the respondent. Having vexed with the attitude of the respondent, the petitioner/husband decided to dissolve his marriage with the respondent as there is no chance for the reunion. Therefore the present impugned HMOP (SR) has been filed before the trial Court. But the trail Court returned the said HMOP SR, with an objection for proof of lastly residing address particulars of the petitioner in the jurisdiction and therefore the petition is returned with a direction to the petitioner to file this petition before the jurisdiction of the respondent where presently she reside. But the trail Court returned the said HMOP SR, with an objection for proof of lastly residing address particulars of the petitioner in the jurisdiction and therefore the petition is returned with a direction to the petitioner to file this petition before the jurisdiction of the respondent where presently she reside. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition came to be filed. 4. Heard Sri P. Rama Rayudu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.V.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the docket order of the trial Court is illegal, arbitrary and against the settled propositions of law. He submits that the trial Court failed to understand the scope of Section 19 of Hindu Marriage Act , 1955 and the settled legal position of law holding the field and refused to receive the petition and number the same. he submits that the trial Court erred in holding that Petitioner/husband cannot invoke its jurisdiction under section 19 (1) of the Hindu Marriage, 1955, where the marriage was solemnized between the Petitioner/husband and the Respondent/wife as the same is a contest divorce and also erred in holding that though statue provides for filing the divorce petition at the place where the marriage took place, the object of the legislature in lieu of section 19 (iiia) of the Hindu Marriage, 1955, permits the filing of the petition only at the place where the wife is residing. He submits that the object of the legislature in cases of contested divorce petition is that the petition must be filed only at the place where the wife is residing and rest all options enumerated in section 19 of the Hindu Marriage, 1955, must be overlooked as the object of the legislature prevails over the statute. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed for allowing the revision and prayed to dismiss the same. 7. Perused the material on record. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the trial Court failed to note that there is no such distinguishment provided under section 19 of the Hindu Marriage, 1955, between contest divorce petitions and mutual divorce petitions. 7. Perused the material on record. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the trial Court failed to note that there is no such distinguishment provided under section 19 of the Hindu Marriage, 1955, between contest divorce petitions and mutual divorce petitions. it is also contended that the trial Court erred in holding that section 19 (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955, is general provision and section 19 (iiia) of the said Act, 1955, is a special provision and as such the special provision prevails over general provision. 9. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, which reads as under: 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 solemnised, 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 (iiia) 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. 10. On a perusal of above, this Court is of the view that the trial Court ought to have received the divorce petition filed by the Petitioner/husband and number the same, as the marriage admittedly took place at Chikkala Village, which falls under its jurisdiction and the same is fell within the purview of section 19 (i) of the said Act, 1955. It is also observed that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized at Chikkala village. 11. In a case of P.K. Palanisamy versus N. Arumugham and another , [(2009) 9 Supreme Court Cases 173] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that : “... We have, however, serious reservations as to whether the civil court could hear a defendant before registering a plaint. The Code does not envisage such a situation. 11. In a case of P.K. Palanisamy versus N. Arumugham and another , [(2009) 9 Supreme Court Cases 173] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that : “... We have, however, serious reservations as to whether the civil court could hear a defendant before registering a plaint. The Code does not envisage such a situation. When a suit is filed, the Civil Court is bound by the procedures laid down in the Code. The defendant upon appearing, however, in certain situations, may question the orders passed by the Civil Court at a later stage.” (ii) In another case reported in Slvaraj versus Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant Indian Limited rep. through its Project Director , [2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2514] , wherein the High Court of Madras held that : “When a plaint is presented before the Registry on the Original Side of the District Judiciary, the Registry while scrutinizing it for evaluating its merit for registration, raises baffling if not mindless objections, most of which may be relevant only for final adjudication and not for registering the plaint. And these objections eventually bear the signature of the judicial officer concerned and hence they become the Court’s objections.” Further, this High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a case of Gorripati Veera Venkata Rao and others versus Ethalapaka Vanaja and others , [2025 SCC OnLine AP 50] , wherein it was held that : “All the rules of procedure are handmald of justice. Procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice and not an obstruction. To restrict the litigant seeking for justice at the entry point, the stage of registration and numbering of the plaint, by raising the objections not provided or contemplated by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure or/and the A.P. Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Order, 1980, or such objections which are required to be decided on the judicial side and based on such objections not to register or number the plaint and return the same again and again, results in keeping such person away from the Court, which certainly results in delaying dispensation of justice. Many plaints may accompany the applications for grant of temporary injunction or grant for relief of urgent nature. The Registry must not be oblivious of such aspect. Many plaints may accompany the applications for grant of temporary injunction or grant for relief of urgent nature. The Registry must not be oblivious of such aspect. It must be vigilant to protect the rights of the litigants to have access to justice, knocking the doors of the court at the stage of numbering/registration. It shall ensure, not to insist compliance with such objections, which are not contemplated by the Code of Civil Procedure or Civil Rules of Practice, at the stage of registration of plaint or which the registry in the discharge of its ministerial function has to consider. Even if the objections have the backing of the rules and there is non-compliance, the plaint should not be returned, frequently, to comply with the objections, in spite of re-submission with the reply. Registry, with the objections and note/reply, should place the matter before the Court for consideration and appropriate orders. The court has the power to dispense with or grant time to comply with the procedural requirements and at the same time, in appropriate cases, where justice so demands, to pass appropriate orders safeguarding the interest of the persons approaching the court.” 12. As seen from the impugned order, this Court observed that, the trial Court raised objections only on the ground of jurisdiction point of view and it has to be decided only on appearance of the respondent. Further, whatever the objections raised by Court, those objections have to be considered at the time of framing the issues and at the time of trial only not prior to numbering the HMOP. 13. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and the law laid down by the various Courts as stated above, this Court deems fit to dispose of the present civil revision petition while setting aside the impugned order. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of setting aside the docket order dated 07.08.2024 in HMOP SR No.3030 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kovvur. Further, the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kovvur is directed to receive and number the HMOP and shall decide the same after affording sufficient reasonable opportunity to both parties. No costs. 15. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.