LAWS(DLH)-1978-1-19

UPENDRA KUMAR Vs. HARPRIYA KUMAR

Decided On January 19, 1978
UPENDRA KUMAR Appellant
V/S
HARPRIYA KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises several questions oflaw. In order, however, to appreciate the contentions raised it is firstnecessary to notice facts.

(2.) The parties hereto are Hindus. They were married on 11/03/1974 at Ram Nagar in Uttar Pradesh in accordance with Hindurites. After marriage the couple went to and resided at Buxar, theplace of the husband. They lived together as husband and wife onlyfor two days for in the forenoon of 14/03/1974 the respondentleft for her parental home. The parties have never resided togetherat any place thereafter. On 18/09/1975 the appellantfiled a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act againstthe respondent praying for the grant of a decree for restitution ofconjugal rights. This petition was filed in the court of the DistrictJudge, Delhi. The respondent was served with the notice of thepetition. Appearance was put in on her behalf and on 13/11/1975 a request was made to grant time to file the written statementor reply to the petition under Section 9 of the said Act. Time wasgranted to the respondent and the hearing was adjourned to 5/01/1976. On 15/12/1975 an application was filed on behalfof the respondent for holding the proceedings in camera. On 5/01/1976 the respondent filed her written statement. The trial Courtthereafter fixed 30/04/1976 as the date for appearance of theparties in order to investigate the possibilities of reconciliationbetween the couple. Instead of appearing in person the respondent,however, moved the trial Court to fix a preliminary issue on thepoint of territorial jurisdiction of the District Judge, Delhi, to try thepetition under Section 9 of the Act. The point of jurisdiction, it maybe noticed, was not taken up at any time prior to this stage. Thetrial Court, thereafter framed the following issue:-"Whether this court has jurisdiction to try this petition ?"

(3.) The appeallant's case before the trial Court was that the DistrictJudge, Delhi, had jurisdiction to try the petition because the appellant/petitioner was a permanent' resident of Delhi and was stillresiding in Delhi where the wife was bound in law to dischargeher marital obligations qua the husband. The respondent, however,relied on Section 19 of the said Act and took up the plea that as neitherthe marriage was solemnised at Delhi nor the husband and wife everresided or last' resided at Delhi, the Courts a.t Delhi had no jurisdictionto entertain the petition.