T R JAYAPRAKASH RAMAKRISHNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.G.Hariharan, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner--husband by way of the writ petition, principally attacked the amendment brought by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 2003, whereby sub-clause (iiia) had been incorporated after clause 3 of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Thereby it has been provided that in case the wife is the petitioner, it would have been possible for her to present a petition under the Act, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition. According to the petitioner, this was a privilege, which often was likely to be misused and has really contributed to multiplicity of legal proceedings. He points out that in the present case, after a married life of over 20 years, the relatives of the wife had been successful in persuading the wife to move against the petitioner, because of the personal animosity. He states that going by the averments in the petition the wife was living separated from 2001 onwards, and a petition is filed alleging cruelty, in the year 2006. If the parties were left alone, because of their long association, there would not have been instance of any application under section 19 of the Act. It is submitted that the discretion given to the wife, in the matter of procedure, is irrational.

(2.) However, we are of the view that the legislative wisdom, which has resulted in the amendment, does not appear to us to be irrational as suggested. It has now become possible for a wife to move a petition, where she was residing, especially after estrangement, as most often she might be at the receiving end, and otherwise would rather opt to ruminate them venture into litigation for securing her rights.

(3.) It is to be noticed that such amendments have been incorporated in the Hindu Marriage Act as well as the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Mr.Hariharan refers to the well known concepts of jurisdiction as laid down by Sections 16 to 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Suits are required to be instituted where the respondent resides. The above was the provision before the amendment, he points out. The Family Court is not only empowered to enquire into the issue of present relationship, but has to deal with guardianship, property rights and maintenance. A Family Court, which is empowered to take cognizance of the complaints, has limited territorial jurisdiction, and when the respondent is situated away, it may be difficult to enforce orders, he submits.