(1.) Heard Sri P.A. Seshu, learned Counsel representing appellant-plaintiff and Sri P. Dharmesh, learned Counsel representing respondent-defendant.
(2.) This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed as against an order dated 02.02.2009 made in O.S.G.L. No. 199 of 2009 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, returning the plaint with objections.
(3.) Sri P.A. Seshu, learned Counsel representing the appellant-plaintiff would maintain that the said order made by the learned Judge for presentation of the plaint in proper court is not just and legal. The counsel also would maintain that the learned Judge totally erred in holding that the suit is not maintainable on the point of territorial jurisdiction. The counsel also would maintain that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for maintenance and for recovery of arrears of maintenance against the respondent-defendant at a place where cause of action arose, since the marriage, in fact, had been celebrated at the said place Gudivada. The counsel also pointed out to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Code" for the purpose of convenience). The counsel also would maintain that the learned Judge totally erred in observing that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in respect of appellant-plaintiff's maintenance claim from December 2007 onwards as objected by the office, because during that relevant period both parties stayed at Hyderabad where plaintiff also lodged a police complaint and till both parties shifted to Hyderabad after marriage and plaintiff-petitioner was driven out of the home by the respondent-defendant, the plaintiff cannot claim maintenance and her right to claim maintenance arose only from November and December 2007 when they were residing at Hyderabad and, therefore, the said court cannot entertain the suit for maintenance filed by the appellant- plaintiff. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.