REENA SRIVASTAVA Vs. VIJAI RAM SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff Respondent Vijai Ram Srivastava filed a suit for dissolution of marriage under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of IVth Additional District Judge, Faizabad alleging that the Defendant -revisionist No. 1 Smt. Reena Srivastava was marred to the Plaintiff on 9 -12 -1982 at Sitapur. It was, further contended that in the marriage the girl was changed and instead of marrying the girl which was shown to him, the Plaintiff was married to Defendant -revisionist Smt. Reena Srivastava. The Plaintiff thus asserted that the marriage stood vitiated by fraud having been practised by the Defendants and on this ground the annulment of the marriage was sought by the Plaintiff. It was further asserted that after the marriage Defendant -revisionist No. 1 came to reside with the Plaintiff at Faizabad and since at first sight the fraud was detected by the Plaintiff, she was asked to go back to her father's place and she left the house of the Plaintiff on 11 -12 -1982 to reside at her father's place, The suit was contested by the Defendants and it was asserted that no fraud was practised on the Plaintiff and it was vehemently denied that the Defendant was not shown to the Plaintiff before the marriage and some other girl was shown. Besides taking other pleas, a plea regarding maintainability of suit before the Court of IVth Addl. District Judge, Faizabad was also taken and it was asserted that since after the marriage was solemnised at Sitapur, the parties lived as husband and wife at Riwari in Hariyana State, and, as such, the suit is not, maintainable in court at Faizabad. The trial court while framing issues in the suit, an issue No. 1 regarding jurisdiction was also framed which reads as follows:

(2.) APPLICATION (22/C) was moved by the opposite party for treating issue No. 1 as a preliminary issue and that it be decided as such. This application was rejected by learned District Judge by the impugned order dated 24th May, 1984 observing that since this question involves determination of facts as well, and, as such, this issue cannot be taken up as a preliminary issue. Aggrieved by this order, Defendant Applicant has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) I have considered these decisions and I find myself in full agreement with the view taken therein. Since in the present case question of jurisdiction involves recording of evidence on the question of last residence of parties, I find that it will not be appropriate that the parties be required to lead evidence on the issue of jurisdiction alone for determination of that issue. By taking into. consideration the question of controversy raised in the written statement, I find that most of the persons who would be examined as witnesses in the case, would be speaking on all the points raised in the plaint and the written statement. It would thus not be proper to record evidence piecemeal first on the plea of jurisdiction and subsequently on other pleas raised by the parties in the plaint and the written statement. The question of jurisdiction if it involves determination of disputed facts would not deserve to be taken up as preliminary issue. In this view of the matter I find that the trial court has not committed any error in not determining this issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue as it involves mixed questions of fact and law, and would require recording of evidence on the disputed question.