ARTIBEN SASHANKBHAI VASA Vs. SASHANKBHAI PRAFULCHANDRA VASA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-plaintiffs have challenged in this appeal the impugned order dated 15.9.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Valsad in Special Civil Suit No.159 of 1999 whereby the learned Judge returned plaint to the plaintiffs for presenting the same before the court which has jurisdiction, as according to him, he had no jurisdiction to try the suit for damages and maintenance. It is a brief order, therefore, I would like to reproduce the same which is as under :-

(2.) Thus, the learned judge held that provisions of Section 20(c) Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") would be applicable and provisions of Section 19 CPC would not be applicable as the plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants for damages and maintenance. The suit can be filed in a case where marriage took place. Looking to the averments made in the plaint, nowhere it appears that the marriage took place between the parties in the jurisdiction of the court and deliberately the plaintiff has suppressed the fact regarding her marriage with the defendant No.1. Reading the plaint it is clear that father of the plaintiff is staying at Rajkot and she has stayed at Rajkot. Not only that her first daughter was born at Rajkot. Thus, it can be easily inferred that her marriage took place at Rajkot. When the marriage has not taken place in the jurisdiction of his court, then he will have no jurisdiction to try and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable and under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, the plaint has to be returned to the plaintiff and accordingly it was returned.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr.Sanjanwala and Mr.Hriday Buch for appellants vehemently submitted that it was a suit for damages and maintenance filed by the plaintiffs at Vapi where desertion took place and wrong was committed by the defendants, therefore, the leaned Judge was wrong in holding that provisions of Section 20(c) CPC would apply and not Section 19. It was submitted that the learned Judge passed the impugned order without extending the opportunity of hearing to counsel for the plaintiffs, therefore, the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside. It was also submitted that marriage may not have taken place at Vapi where the suit was filed but part of cause of action viz. torture and harassment and desertion of the plaintiffs was at Vapi and, therefore, Vapi court would have jurisdiction under Section 19 CPC. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this court in case of P.P.Prabhakaran Vs. Medical Officer-in-Charge reported in XXV(1) GLR 706 wherein the learned single judge of this court has considered the judgment of Bombay High Court in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sarvodaya Industries reported in AIR 1975 Bombay 197. Reliance was placed also on the judgment of Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in case of Smt.Sheela Adhikari Vs. Rabindra Nath Adhikari reported in AIR 1988 Cal. 273. Lastly, reliance was placed upon judgment of Madras High Court in case of Ramanujulu Vs. Shiva reported in 1955 1 KLJ 397.