SUBHASH CHANDRA JAIN Vs. VIDYUT JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision arising out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff-opposite party against the applicant for recovery of amount of Rs. 8,570/- as arrears of maintenance allowance for the period commencing 1st of August, 1969 and ending 30th September, 1971, for future maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month for return of ornaments of the plaintiff-opposite party alleged to have been illegally detained by the defendant-applicant or in the alternative for an amount of Rs. 11,600/- as compensation therefor and for permanent injunction to restrain the applicant from entering into matrimony with one Km. Ushi or any other girl or woman.

(2.) THE suit was instituted by the opposite party on the allegations that she was married to the applicant according to Jain Dharmashastra on the 8th of June, 1969 at her parents' residence at Etah. It was alleged that while the applicant was employed and lived at Delhi his parents resided at Calcutta. According to the opposite party after her marriage, she went to Agra with the applicant where he resided at the relevant time and stayed there for few days and thereafter returned to Etah. After stay for about 3 days at Etah, it is alleged, that the opposite party went to Calcutta because the applicant and the members of his family were leaving for Calcutta after the marriage. According to the plaint case, the opposite party after stay for about one month at Calcutta at the residence of the parents of the applicant returned back to Etah and has since then been residing there. It is alleged that in spite of efforts being made by the parents of the opposite party, the applicant did not take her back with him and did not even support her in any fashion. THE plaintiff claimed that the conduct of the applicant amounted to desertion of the opposite party and consequently she was entitled to a decree for maintenance allowance. THE plaint discloses that when the efforts of the opposite party to persuade the applicant to take her back as his wedded wife and keep her with him proved futile, she herself went to Delhi in June, 1971 but the applicant refused to keep her with him and informed her that he was intending to marry one Km. Ushi. It is asserted in the plaint that in view of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the opposite party was entitled to the benefits of a monogamous marriage and the applicant could not marry a second time as long as the opposite party continued to remain the wife of the applicant, According to the plaintiff-opposite party, when she returned back from Calcutta to Etah, the applicant had detained with him her ornaments and valuable clothes which formed her Stridhana property having been gifted to her by the plaintiff' s father and by the applicant at the time of the marriage ceremony.

(3.) THOUGH there is no discussion on the subject, this Court in the above decision held that a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and for return of ornaments at the instance of the wife was maintainable at the place where the marriage between the parties was performed. The basis of the judgment, as would appear from the passage quoted above, was that part of the cause of action in such a suit is the performance of marriage between the parties. A similar view has been taken by the Madras High Court in K. Vajravelu Mudaliar v. Rajalakshmi Ammal (AIR 1954 Mad 358).