NIRMALA KUMARI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE MAINPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an order dated 17-4-1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Mainpuri, in Civil Revision No. 58 of 1998, while dismissing the revision, had confirmed the order dated 17-1-1998, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mainpuri deciding the issue No. 3, tried as a preliminary issue to the extent that the said issue involves determination of disputed question of fact through evidence that might be led at the time of hearing of the suit, and therefore this issue of jurisdiction should be decided along with other issues on merits at the time of hearing of the suit itself. This order is under challenge in this petition.

(2.) Mr. N. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the jurisdiction of the Court in respect of the present suit filed under Section 9/13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is provided in Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act. By reason of Section 19 of the said Act such petition can be filed only in the Court having jurisdiction where the marriage had solemnised or the parties have lived or resided last together.

(3.) In the present case the plaintiff in paragraph 8 of the plaint had admitted that the petitioner-defendant wife had been in service at Budaun and had been residing there. Though in the plaint he had claimed that the marriage has taken place at Mainpuri but in the replication filed by him in reply to the written statement by the petitioner-wife alleging that the marriage had taken place at Budaun, the plaintiff had admitted that the marriage to have been solemnised at Budaun. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, by reason of these two admissions, no evidence were necessary to be led for the purpose of deciding the issue No. 3 with regard to jurisdiction. He relies on the decision in the case of Smt. Jeewanti Pandey v. Kishan Chandra Pandey, AIR 1982 SC 3 in support of his contention.