SMT. 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 married 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. I 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.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist urged that the learned trial court erred in not deciding this issue as a preliminary issue. He urged that even if evidence was required to be led for the decision on this issue of jurisdiction, the trial court should have proceeded to decide this issue as a preliminary issue after taking the evidence of parties on this score alone. I do not find any merit in this contention. In Major S.C. Khanna v. Brig F.J. Dillon, : A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 497, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist cited the decision of Supreme Court in Smt. Jeewanti Pandey v. Kishan Chandra Pandey, : A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 3, in support of his contention that the material question of residence could be determined by the trial court on the law declared by the Supreme Court in its recent decision on the point. There can be no dispute that the question with regard to residence of parties, within the meaning of clause (ii) of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is raised in the petition for annulment of the marriage under section 12 of the Act, has to be decided in accordance with the law laid down in the said decision. But for deciding that question of residence the evidence has to be led by the parties and without recording evidence on that disputed question of fact, no decision can be recorded on the question of jurisdiction raised in the present suit. The said referred decision, therefore, does not assist the revisionist on the point involved in the present revision.