RUPA SETHI Vs. SANJAY YADAV SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A belated attempt at beating a retreat from the territorial jurisdiction of the Court has been foiled by the learned trial Judge. What is judicially not-so-welcome a plea is sought to be re-raised by the dauntless defendant in the revisional jurisdiction of High Court. The Trial Court has rejected the defendant's application seeking an amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code in her written statement proposing to introduce an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court.

(2.) A backdrop of events in brief. The defendant-petitioner is an air hostess having fallen in love with the plaintiff-respondent leading to a marriage solemnised on 23.3.90 at Bombay. The couple was blessed with a daughter on 5.1.92. Unfortunately the marriage had a happy spell of merely 3 years whereafter it has broken down. The husband has filed a petition for divorce alleging cruelty and desertion on the part of the wife. The plaint was presented on 28th June, 1993. As is usual in such proceedings, the first thing which the wife-petitioner did on service of summons was to move an application seeking interim maintenance for the child. The application was filed on 15.10.93. Obviously the wife having a nice job of an air hostess for herself could not have claimed and did not claim any maintenance for herself. Simultaneously proceedings for settlement in Court also went on. On 23.8.94, the application seeking ad-interim maintenance for the child was disposed of by the Court directing the respondent-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000.00 per month with effect from the date of the application to the wife for the child.

(3.) On 12.9.94 the wife filed the written statement. No objection is taken therein to the competence of the Court at Delhi to try the suit by reference to its territorial jurisdiction. On 4.1.96, the wife filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC whereby she sought for present paras 6 and 11 of the written statement being deleted and instead the following paragraphs being substituted : "Para 11 is wrong and denied. It is wrong that the parties last resided together at 13-B/4, Sant Gadge Marg, North Extension Area, New Delhi-110060 and within the local limits of ordinary original jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Paradoxically enough, the petitioner has not stated when and on what occasion the parties last resided together in the said house which he has intentionally and deliberately tried to create jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court when there . exists none. It may be mentioned that the parties last resided together at Bombay and in/upto May, 92 which was chosen to be the matrimonial home of the parties and thus only Bombay Courts have got the jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition. It goes without saying that no matrimonial home whatsoever had been set up at Delhi and the aforesaid house is simply a parental home of the petitioner and mere casual and flying visit of the respondent on few occasions cannot be said to be stay in the matrimonial home so as to constitute last residence of the parties together."