IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ M.F.A. NO.1295 OF 2015 (MC) BETWEEN:
1. YOGESH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O DURUGAPPA OBANNANAHALLI VILLAGE TALUKA HOBLI, HANUMANTHANA HALLI POST, CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 2. RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS W/O YOGESH GOLLAHALLI, GHUMMAGHATTA (M) RAYADURGA TALUK ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT (AP) ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K.B. ONKARA, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT NO.1 SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY.M, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT NO.2) AND:
NIL … RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.10.2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, CHALLAKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(b) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
***** THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, SURAJ GOVINDARAJ. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT 1. The present Miscellaneous First Appeal arises out of the Judgment dated 31.10.2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere (‘Trial Court' for short) in M.C.No.13/2014.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Trial Court.
3. M.C.No.13/2014 was a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for brevity]. The first petitioner being the husband and second petitioner being the wife, there are no respondents in the matter.
4. The petitioners had filed a joint petition pleading that they are husband and wife and their marriage was performed on 31.03.2010 at Goallahalli village, Ghummaghatta, Rayadurga taluk, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh. After the marriage, petitioner No.2 came to the house of petitioner No.1 at Obanahalli village to perform marital obligation and she led a marital life with petitioner No.1 for about fifteen days. Thereafter certain quarrels took place, hence, mother of petitioner No.2 came to Obanahalli village and took away petitioner No.2 from the house of petitioner No.1.
5. The petitioners have stated that despite several panchayats and intervention of family members, the disputes were not sorted out. Even the parents of petitioner No.2 were not interested in sending Petitioner No.2 to the house of petitioner No.1.
6. In order to put an end to the disputes, the petitioners, due to the deep rooted differences between them, wished to obtain a divorce by mutual consent and put an end to their marital life. In view of this, with the consent of the elders, M.C.No. 13/2014 came to be filed.
7. Petitioner No.1 got himself examined as PW-1.
Petitioner No.2 got herself examined as PW-2 and they got marked one document as Exhibit-P1 and closed the side. The Court below formulated the following points for consideration:
“1. Whether this court has got jurisdiction to try the petition ?
2. Whether the petitioners made out grounds to allow the petition ?
3. What order ?”
8. The Court below framed a preliminary issue on jurisdiction and dismissed the joint petition holding that the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere would not have jurisdiction since (i) the marriage was not performed within that Court’s jurisdiction and (ii) there was no statement/averment made in the joint petition that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 last resided as husband and wife within the jurisdiction of the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been preferred.
9. We have heard Sri.K.B.Onkara, learned counsel for appellant/petitioner No.1. Sri.Vinaya Keerthy, learned counsel for appellant/petitioner No.2 has remained absent and there is no representation.
10. Sri.K.B.Onkara, learned counsel submits that the joint petition filed specifically states that immediately after marriage, petitioner No.2 came and resided in Obanahalli village and thereafter due to quarrel, left the matrimonial home. Therefore, it was Obanahalli village where the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 last resided together as husband and wife and it is their last matrimonial home and hence, the Court below would have the jurisdiction in terms of Section 19(iii) of the Act to adjudicate on the dispute.
11. For easy reference, Section 19 of the Act is reproduced herein:
“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.”
12. It is submitted that the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere observing that the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No.2 took place on 31.03.2010 at Gollahalli village, Ghummaghatta, Rayadurga, Andhra Pradesh and since nowhere it is specifically pleaded as to where exactly petitioner Nos.1 and 2 last resided together, has held that the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere would not have the jurisdiction.
13. In our view, it is not required to be specifically stated as to where the petitioners last resided together as husband and wife. If this information can be ascertained and culled out from the petition and there being sufficient averments relating thereto, there is no need to insist on specific pleadings to that effect. What is required to be seen is if the averments made would confer jurisdiction on the Court below in terms of Section 19 of the Act. Paragraph 2 of the impugned Judgment itself categorically indicates that immediately after the marriage on 31.3.2010, petitioner NOs.1 and 2 came to Obanahalli village and resided there for fifteen days. Thereafter, since there were serious differences and quarrels, petitioner No.2 left the matrimonial home. There is no averment made in the petition as regards petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 getting back together and/or establishing any other matrimonial home. From the averments made, it is clear that the last matrimonial home was in Obanahalli village and it is where petitioner Nos.1 and 2 last resided together.
14. In view of the above, the impugned Judgment dated 31.10.2014 passed in M.C.No.13/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere is required to be set- aside and is set aside.
15. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment of learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere dated 31.10.2014 in MC No.13/2014 is set-aside. The matter is remanded to the said Court for considering the petition filed under Section 13B(1) of the Act, on its merits.
16. Sri.K.B.Onkara, learned counsel submitted that the parties have led their evidence and the matter could be taken up from the stage of final arguments. We are in agreement with the same. The appellants/petitioners shall appear before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere on 4.11.2019 without expecting any further notice. The Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere is directed to take up the matter at the earliest from the stage of final arguments and dispose of the petition on merits, in accordance with law, on or before 30.11.2019.
The parties to co-operate for expeditious disposal of the petition.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ln