SUPRIYA Vs. VASUDEV DANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision against the judgment and order passed by the District Judge, Dehradun, up setting the order of the Civil Judge regard ing return of the plaint and holding that Dehradun Court had jurisdiction to hear the petition filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(2.) THE petitioner filed this petition with the allegation that the parties last stay ed at Dehradun as husband and wife and, therefore, Dehradun Court had jurisdiction to try the petition. This contention of the petitioner was denied by the respondent who stated that she had not gone to Dehra dun to stay with the petitioner but had gone with the intention of totally separating her self from the petitioner and to bring back her certain articles from there.

(3.) THE words "reside' and 'last resid ed together' have, therefore, to be interpret ed for finding out as to whether this stay of three days of the respondent at Dehradun would come under the terms 'reside' or 'last resided together'. Before these two words, we find the words 'husband and wife'. This means that in order to confer jurisdiction to a Court, a petitioner must prove that the parties 'reside' or 'last resided together' as husband and wife. If a wife went to the husband's place only to get rid of the hus band or to quarrel with him, it would not be proper to say that the parties last resid ed as husband and wife. The word 'resided' therefore, had to be given a special mean ing in connection with the relationship of Wife and husband. A man residing at a particular place may go with his wife for sight-seeing at a certain place and stay there for a couple of days. That would not amount to saying that at the place of the sight- seeing, they last resided. Similarly, if a husband goes and stays at a hotel with his wife for a couple of days, it would not be correct to say that they last resided at the place where the hotel was situated.