SAROJA Vs. EMMANUAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE serious question to be decided in this revision petition is one of jurisdiction. The petitioner before me is the wife and the respondent is her husband. On July 7, 1962 the husband made an application to the District Judge, Mysore, under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act for a dissolution of the marriage. The ground on which such dissolution was sought was adultery. It is undisputed that these two spouses were married in the year 1954 and that until about 1956 they lived about in Bangalore. Both these spouses are Government employees; the wife is a teacher in a school and the husband is an Inspector of Police. When the wife was transferred to Tumkur in the year 1956 and the husband was transferred to Mysore, they could not naturally find it possible to live together in the same place. But the husband's allegation in his application was that in the year 1958 he and his wife last resided together in Mysore and that thereafter the wife descreted him and was living in adultery. The preliminary objection to the proceeding by the wife was that the District Judge, Mysore, was not competent to take cognizance of the application presented by the husband since at no relevant point of time according to the wife, did she and her husband reside within his jurisdiction.

(2.) SECTION 10 of the Divorce Act authorises the presentation of a petition for the dissolution of the marriage to the District Court or to the High Court. The expression "District Court" is defined by Section 3(3) of the Act which reads :

(3.) THE challenge to the correctness of the finding recorded by the District Judge may be briefly disposed of. In a revision petition like the one before me, I can disturb the finding of the District Judge only if I can say that there is no evidence to support it, and unless I can say so it would be my business to uphold it.