CHOPPALA LALITHA KUMARI Vs. GOGULAMUDI BHASKARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri B. Devadas, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner. The matter is coming up for orders of this Court on an objection taken by the office while numbering the O. P. filed by the petitioner under Section 10-A (1) read with Section 8 of the Divorce act, 1869 (hereinafter in short referred to as "act" for the purpose of convenience ).

(2.) THIS O. P is presented before this Court praying for dissolution of marriage on the strength of an agreement dated 26-11-1984. It is stated that the elders had settled the matter and in pursuance thereto, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. The office raised an objection "it should be stated how this petition can be presented in the High Court directly without approaching District Court in view of the provisions of Amendment Act (Act 51/2001) which came into force from 3-10-2001". It was also pointed out "petition may be filed in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it as per Section 15 C. P. C. " Complying with the office objections, the counsel for the petitioner re-presented the Original petition and stated. " Prior to Amendment Act 51/2001 this Hon'ble court has got jurisdiction to deal with the Matrimonial Cases. In this case, the department issued proceedings to submit Decree of Divorce after 20 years of service in the Department. As per Section 8 of the act, the High Court has got extraordinary jurisdiction to deal with such cases. Hence petition is maintainable".

(3.) SRI B. Devadas, learned Counsel representing the petitioner had drawn the attention of this Court to Sections 3 (1), 4, 8, 10, 10-A, 16, 17 and 19 of the Act and would point out that despite the fact that section 10-A was inserted by the Central Act 51/2001, dated 3-102001, section 16 of the Act had not been amended. The learned counsel also would contend that despite the fact that in Section 19 of the Act, the words "jurisdiction of the District Court" had been introduced in the place of "jurisdiction of High Court" in view of the fact that the High Court or District Court are having concurrent jurisdiction to entertain Original Petitions on the matrimonial side under the Act, under exceptional circumstances this Court also can entertain the Original Petitions. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on T. Saroja David v. Christie Francis Usborn lewis v. Phylis Sylvia Jordan and Anr. (D. B.), T. M. Bashiam v. M. Victor (S. B.), Joseph John Carvalho v. Leila Joseph Carvalho II (1992) DMC 524 (F. B.) (Bombay), Rosy kurian Kannanaikal and Anr. v. Joseph Vreghese Cheeran and Anr. II (2002) DMC 79 (F. B.) (Karnataka ).