CHANDRAKANT ANANDRAO GURAV Vs. SOU MANISHA CHANDRAKANT GURAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE , returnable forthwith. Respondent waives service. By consent taken up for final hearing.

(2.) BY the impugned order dated 22nd November, 2000, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara has rejected the objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and has held that the Trial Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Special Civil Suit No.123 of 1999 has been instituted by the Respondent in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara in which she has prayed for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The Civil Suit which is now pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara was initially instituted in the form of a petition for maintenance before the Family Court at Pune . A preliminary issue as to the jurisdiction of the Family Court at Pune came to be framed and by an order dated 18th January, 1999, the learned Judge of the Family Court concluded that, that Court would have no jurisdiction. The Family Court held that the parties were married at Satara , and the Petitioner herein is a permanent resident of the District of Satara though he was then residing at Vashi where he was employed. Moreover, the parties had last resided together at the place of employment of the husband viz. at Vashi , New Bombay. In the circumstances, the Family Court was of the view that the Petition would lie either before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Satara or at Vashi , New Bombay. After the Petition was thus returned for presentation before the proper Court, the Respondent filed it before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Satara where again an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court was taken. By the impugned order dated 22nd November, 2000, the learned Trial Judge has answered the issue of jurisdiction by holding that the Court did have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.

(3.) IN the present case, the suit for maintenance has been filed under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Unlike the provisions of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, no specific provision in regard to the court to which a petition shall be presented is made in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The Court must of necessity fall back upon the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the present case, it is common ground that ( i ) the parties were married at Satara and (ii) that in the previously instituted suit for divorce, the Petitioner himself furnished his address as that in the District of Satara . This was confirmed by the Petitioner in the course of his deposition. On behalf of the Petitioner, however, it was sought to be urged that in a petition under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the place where the cause of action can be stated to have arisen can only be the place where the husband had either deserted his wife or had treated her with cruelty so as to bring the case within the purview of clauses (a) and (b) of sub section (2) of Section 18.