BALA @ VIJAY Vs. VIJAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against the order passed by the Assistant Judge, Nagpur in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1982 by which he set aside the order passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur in Civil Suit No. 1193 of 1981 directing that the plaint be returned for presentation to proper Court, as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit under section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) The respondent Vijaya brought the suit for a declaration that she was an unmarried girl and the applicant was not her husband and that some sort of fake ceremony which was performed on 9-12-19.80 be declared as void as being vitiated by fraud, undue influence, holding further that there was no legal marriage and perpetually restraining the defendant from posing himself as her husband. Her allegations were that in the year 1980-81 she was studying in the 12th standard when the applicant came to reside in front of her house and started visiting her parents.He represented that he was a law graduate, was getting a salary of Ks. 800.00 per month and had landed property. He got two friends of the respondent to help him and on 9-12-1980 when the respondent and her friends had planned to go for a picture, he got the two friends to take her in an auto-rickshaw to Arya Samaj Mandir and there the respondent was forced to do some sort of acts which she did mechanically under coercion and against her will. She gathered from the talk of the persons present there that some sort of fake marriage ceremony was being performed at the instance of the applicant and her two friends.The respondent contended that the affair had no legal sanctity. She felt that she was under the influence of witchcraft and evil spirit.According to her, the fake ceremony was void in law being vitiated by fraud, coercion and undue influence. Since the applicant had initiated proceedings under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights by bringing Hindu Marriage Petition No. 145 of1981, she brought the suit for the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) It seems that the learned trial Judge examined the respondent under Order 10 and recorded her statement. In that statement (Ex. 18) she stated that she had not married the applicant and.the marriage that had taken place in Arya Samaj Mandir, was performed against her wishes.Acting on the allegations in the plaint and the statement so made by the applicant, the learned trial Judge was of the view that the suit was of the description contemplated by section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and it should have, therefore, been brought in the District Court which alone had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He, therefore, asked the respondent to elect whether she would have the plaint returned to her for presentation to the District Court or whether she wanted to withdraw the suit and file a fresh petition under section 12(1)(c)' of the Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent took time and informed the Court that an appeal was being filed against the order, but the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit for default observing that there was non-compliance with the order that had been passed.