A RAJAMMA Vs. A KRISHNAMA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Chittoor, accepting the husbands petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the only point raised is that it was not competent for the Additional District Judge to deal with petitions under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as these matters are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the District Judge or such other Judge on whom jurisdiction to deal with these matters is specifically conferred by the State Government. It is urged that the Additional District Judge, Chittoor is not invested with power to dispose of petitions under the Hindu Marriage Act and as such he had no jurisdiction to dispose of the petition under Section 9 of that Act presented by the husband in this case.

(2.) The answer to this contention depends on the interpretation to be placed on the relevant provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and the Madras Civil Courts Act, (III of 1873). As the controversy here revolves round Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Sections 3 and 3-A of the Madras Civil Courts Act, it is profitable to read them here. Section 19, which relates to the jurisdiction of Courts to entertain petitions under the Hindu Marriage Act, runs as follows:-

(3.) "District Court" is defined in Section 3 (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 thus: "District Court" means, in any area for which there is a city civil Court, that Court, and in any other area the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, and includes any other civil Court which may be specified by the State. Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, as having jurisdiction in respect of the matters dealt with in this Act."