SHIBU Vs. BIBI K VENU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the husband of the respondent. The marriage was solemnised at Kottayam. The appellant filed Original Petition praying for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) (a) before the Family Court, Kottarakkara. By the impugned order, the Family Court has found that the petition has been filed on the premise that the parties have resided together lastly within the jurisdiction of that Court, in spite of the fact that the wife is presently residing at Kottayam and the marriage was also at Kottayam. It is also stated that D.V.(M.C) No. 10 of 2010 is pending at Kottayam Court and hence the O.P. ought to have filed at the place where the wife presently resides. Hence the original petition was rejected for want of jurisdiction. We heard Learned Counsel for the appellant and Learned Counsel for the respondent.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant would point out that the reasoning of the Family Court is unsustainable having regard to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Section 19 of the Act reads as follows:

(3.) The petition filed by the appellant is on the basis that the parties last resided together within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Kottarakkara. This is clearly permissible having regard to Clause (iii) of Section 19 of the Act. It is also true that the petition could have been filed before the Family Court at Kottayam being the place where the respondent resides. But the fact that the petition could have been filed at Kottayam under Clause (ii) does not have the effect of the right given to a party to invoke Section 19 (iii) being taken away.