THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.371 of 2005 JUDGMENT: (per MSM, J) The unsuccessful petitioner filed this appeal against the order and decretal order dated 31.07.2001 in O.P.No.83 of 1997 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry.
The parties to this appeal will be hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial Court, for convenience.
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming decree of divorce, alleging that the marriage between him and the respondent was performed on 12.05.1993 as per Hindu rites and that the marriage was consummated, lived together at Rajahmundry, led marital life and that the petitioner was subjected to cruelty and the respondent deserted him without any reasonable cause for a period of more than two years preceding to the presentation of the petition.
The respondent filed counter denying the material allegations except to the extent of admitting marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and specifically raised an objection about the territorial jurisdiction of the Court to try and dispose of the matter on various grounds.
During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked, on behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked.
Upon hearing the argument of both the learned counsel, the trial Court found that the Court at Rajahmundry has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and held point No.1 in favour of the respondent and recorded finding on the other grounds under Section 13(1) (ia)(ib) of the Act and dismissed the petition.
In the present appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order on the ground that when the trial Court lacks territorial jurisdiction, the trial Court is not supposed to decide the matter on merits, and prayed to pass appropriate order.
The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the trial Court i.e. Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Rajahmundry has no jurisdiction.
None appears for the respondent, despite serving notice.
The only point to be considered by this Court is about the jurisdiction of the trial Court to try the petition filed by the petitioner.
As per Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, every application shall be presented to the District Court within the local limits of whose original civil jurisdiction - where the marriage was solemnized or the respondent at the time of presentation of the petition resides or the parties to the marriage last resided together and in case, the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition or the petitioner is residing at the time of presentation of the petition in a case where the respondent is at that time residing outside the territories to which the Act extends or has not been heard of as being alive for a period of more than seven years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show any of the incidents which give rise to cause of action mentioned in Section 19 of the Act to confer the jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Rajahmundry even during hearing of this appeal.
Therefore, we find no illegality in the finding of the trial Court in holding that the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Rajahmundry lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of the petition. Hence, the finding of the trial Court is confirmed holding this point in favour of the respondent against the petitioner.
When the trial Court found that it lacks territorial jurisdiction, the trial Court is not expected to decide the matter on merits and at best, the course open to the trial Court is to follow Order VII Rule 10 of CPC to return the petition for presentation in the proper Court, but the trial Court committed an error in deciding the matter on merits. Hence, the order under challenge is hereby set aside to the extent of deciding the matter on merits and the trial Court is directed to return the petition for presentation in proper Court having territorial jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.
26th NOVEMBER, 2014.
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J
kvni