PRAKASH G KHOT Vs. CHANDNIKHOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is by the father of the respondent challenging the order dated 29-11-2001 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, bangalore in O. S. No. 113 of 2001 on LA. No. V.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows. In a petition filed by the petitioner herein under Section 9 of the hindu Marriage Act as against the mother of the respondent for dissolution of the marriage before the Family Court at Pune, the Family Court at Pune, after hearing both the parties, by its order dated 15-9-1994 dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and the mother of the respondent herein under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. While dissolving the marriage, the Family Court at Pune has awarded a sum of Rs. 800/- per month as maintenance in favour of the respondent. Subsequent to the order passed by the Family Court, Pune, the respondent herein has filed original suit before the Principal Civil Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, claiming maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month under the provision of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. In that suit, the petitioner herein has taken the contention that the family Court at Bangalore has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit stating that the Family Court at Pune, which passed the order of dissolution of the marriage, alone has got the jurisdiction to award maintenance. The Principal Judge, Family Court has rejected interim appeal holding that it has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is that order that has been challenged in this writ petition by the petitioner.

(3.) THE Family Court at Bangalore, has held that since the respondent herein and her mother are residing at Bangalore, the suit filed by the respondent for maintenance is maintainable. As could be seen from the impugned order, though the petitioner has not specifically raised the question of jurisdiction of Bangalore Court is now urging the said contention before this Court. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner request that the said point may be considered as it is purely a question of law. In view of the fact that this is purely a question of law, I propose to consider this point also.