KAVATI NAGESH Vs. KAVATI KRISHNAVENI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the husband against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur, in O.P.No. 265 of 1987 directing that the petition for declaration that marriage is a nullity and also for divorce under Sections 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, shall be returned for presentation to the proper Court. We have heared the counsel for the appellant as well as the counsel for the respondent-wife. In view of the fact that this marriage O.P. was filed some time in the year 1987 and the petitioner's evidence was completed and as the wife had not turned up, the matter was argued and the impugned order was passed, we have considered it appropriate to examine the material on record and dispose of the appeal on merits also. THIS is because any remand would further entail unnecessary delay in the disposal of the marriage O.P. The parties were married at Vijayawada on 21-5-1986. They have proceeded to Guntur where the husband resides and on 22-5-1986, it is stated, it was discovered that the wife was pregnant by the date of the marriage. She went back to Vijayawada on 24-5-1986. There was no consummation of the marriage and admittedly the parties have been residing apart ever since then. The present petition was filed before the Guntur Court on 23-6-1987. The petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of the Guntur Court on the ground that the parties had last resided together in Guntur within the jurisdiction of that court as contemplated by sub-clause (iii) of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The vakalat was filed on behalf of the respondent-wife on 17-9-1987 and the matter was adjourned for counter to 11-12-1987. Several adjournments were taken for filing counter and the time was being extended from time to time. On 20th April, 1988, it was adjourned on payment of costs of Rs.150/- to 24-6-1988. On 24-6-1988, neither counter was filed nor costs were paid. The respondent-wife set ex parte and the matter was posted to 1-7-1988. On 1-7-1988, the witnesses on behalf of the petitioner consisting of P.Ws.l and 2 were examined. There was no cross-examination. Arguments were also heard on that day. By the impugned order dated 8-7-1988, the trial court has returned the petition for presentation to the proper court on the ground that neither the respondent was residing within its jurisdiction nor the parties could be said to have last resided together within its jurisdiction. It is useful to extract Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act which confers Jurisdiction on the various courts for entertaining the proceedings under the Act, which reads as follows: