MAHADEV JYOTI UMRANI Vs. SUMITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, a short but an important question namely, to which court appeal lies against an order passed under Section 13 of the Hindu marriage Act, arises for consideration.

(2.) THE facts, giving rise to the said point, are: The appellant herein presented a petition under Section 13 (1), (1-a) and (1-b) of the Hindu marriage Act (hereinafter referred as 'act') seeking a decree of divorce in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Chikkodi in M. C. No. 61 of 1993, but the same came to be dismissed on 31-7-2000. Aggrieved by it, he filed appeal bearing M. A. No. . . . . of 2000 before the Court of principal District Judge at Belgaum, who, by his order dated 11-1-2001 held that said appeal is not maintainable before that Court and accordingly, returned the appeal papers for presentation before proper Court. Hence, the appellant approached this Court by filing present appeal.

(3.) THE respondent, though served with notice of the appeal, has chosen to remain absent and thus, she is unrepresented. In the circumstances, heard the learned Counsel for the appellant only who, placing reliance on the decision in Indraj v Smt. Shanti and Others and a decision of this Court in the case of Mallappa v Mallava, submitted that District Judge has jurisdiction as First Appellate Authority. Perused the record carefully.