SATYAWATI DEVI Vs. RAM JI SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a wife's application in revision which arises out of a suit for divorce brought by her husband Ramji Sri -vastava. The suit was instituted in the Court of Judge, Small Cause Court, Varanasi. The learned Judge decreed the suit. The applicant challenged the decree by way of revision before the 2nd Additional District Judge, Varanasi. The only objection raised before the Court below was that the Small Cause Court Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned Judge repelled the objection and dismissed the revision. His order has been challenged in revision before me.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that a suit for divorce is excepted from the cognizance of the Court of Small Causes under Clause (37) of the Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). There is no doubt that a Small Cause Court Judge cannot take cognizance of a suit for divorce.

(3.) It was held by Oak, C. J. in Shesh Narain v/s. Smt. Savitri ( : AIR 1967 All 156), that where a petition under a Hindu Marriage Act is decided by a Small Cause Court Judge it can only be challenged in revision under Sec. 25 of the Act. In the aforesaid case the petition for judicial separation under Sec. 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Kanpur. Sec. 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act says that every petition under the Act "shall be presented to the District Court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction the marriage was solemnized or the husband and wife reside or last resided together." The expression 'district court' has been defined in Sec. 3(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It says: