ANIL KUMAR DIWAKER Vs. PRINCIPAL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. M. S. Mangla, the learned counsel duly assisted by Mr. Lalit Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

(2.) THE opposite party filed a suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Dehradun in the year 2001 alleging that she is residing with her parents at Dehradun and that she has separated from her husband Anil Kumar Diwaker since 2001 and that the petitioner is residing at Meerut. Upon issuance of a notice, the petitioner filed an objection contending that the suit was not maintainable before the Family Court, Dehradun and that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit for divorce in view of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Further objection raised by the petitioner was that the divorce petition filed by the opposite party was in violation of Rule 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the Divorce Rules, 1956. THE said application was rejected by the court below by an order dated 08th August, 2006.

(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid provision indicates that a petition could be presented to a District Court within the local limits where the marriage was solemnized or where the respondent was residing at the time of the presentation of the petition or where parties last resided together. On the basis of this provision, the learned counsel submitted that at the time when the divorce petition was presented before the Family Court in the year 2001, the petitioner was residing at Meerut. The petitioner i.e. the respondent in the suit for divorce was residing at Meerut at the time when the marriage was solemnized and the parties to the marriage also last resided at Meerut when the opposite party left the house of the petitioner. In the light of this provision, the learned counsel submitted that the opposite party could not have instituted the suit at the Family Court, Dehradun.