K VAJRAVELU MUDALIAR Vs. RAJALAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for determination in this revision petition is whether the place of marriage confers jurisdiction for a suit for maintenance filed by a Hindu wife against her husband.

(2.) The petitioner is the husband and the suit was instituted by his wife the respondent, in the District Munsif's Court of Tiruchirapalli, for recovery of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50 per mensem, for arrears and for other reliefs. The petitioner was residing in Chittoor, a place outside the Jurisdiction of the Additional District Munsif's court of Tiruchirapalli and on his contention that the District Munsif's court of Tiruchirapalli had no jurisdiction to try the suit, the issue as to jurisdiction was tried as a preliminary issue. The District Munsif of Tiruchirapalli upheld the objection holding that the cause of action for a suit for maintenance was the breach of the duty on the part of the husband to maintain his wife, which breach of duty occurred at Chittoor and repelled the argument on behalf of the respondent that marriage being part of the cause of action for a suit for maintenance, the suit could be instituted in the place where the parties were married. The decision of the District Munsif of Tiruchirapalli was reversed by the District Judge of Tiruchirapalli in appeal, who held that marriage also formed part of the cause of action and the place where the marriage was celebrated being Tiruchirapalli, the suit for maintenance could be instituted in the District Munsif's court of that place.

(3.) It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that for a claim for maintenance, marriage does not form part of the cause of action, though the general relationship which imposes an obligation on the part of the husband to pay maintenance arises out of the marriage; but the real cause of action for a suit for maintenance is the refusal to maintain, which refusal in the present case had occurred at Chittoor, and that the court in Chittoor alone, where not only the cause of action arose but the defendant resided, had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.