ANURAG DWIVEDI Vs. SONALI DWIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the civil revisions being interconnected were heard analogously and are disposed by this common order.

(2.) IN Civil Revision No. 624/2000 the petitioner is the husband. The marriage between the petitioner and the non-applicant was solemnised on 12-12-97 at Nagpur. Thereafter the petitioner and the non-applicant came to the house of the petitioner at Jabalpur. As the petitioner is working at Bhopal he took the non-applicant - wife with him to Bhopal. Thereafter, they came back to Jabalpur and stayed with the other members of the family. As averred the petitioner left the non-applicant at Jabalpur and proceeded to Bhopal for joining his duties. As the petitioner felt that the non-applicant was of unsound mind he filed a suit for divorce as well as declaration that the marriage is null and void as the fraud had been practised on him. As the application was filed within one year the petitioner sought leave under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).

(3.) THE non-applicant - wife entered appearance and resisted the action. During the pendency of the proceeding she filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for grant of maintenance and litigation expenses. The learned Additional District Judge fixed an amount towards interim maintenance. A written statement was filed on 22-1-2000 with a counter claim for restitution of conjugal rights. The non-applicant took objection to the trial Court's jurisdiction to try the suit on the ground that the marriage was performed at Nagpur and the couple had last resided together at Bhopal. The learned trial Judge by order dated 15-2-2000 came to hold that the Courts at Jabalpur had no jurisdiction to try the petition. Accordingly the trial Court directed return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for presenting it before the proper Court i. e. , the Court at Bhopal or Nagpur. While so directing the learned trial Judge also ordered for payment of balance amount as directed under Section 24 of the Act. It has been stipulated therein that after payment of maintenance up to date the petitioner/husband would be entitled to take the petition back. Time was extended till 28-22000 for payment for remaining amount of maintenance. The said direction is the cause of grievance of the petitioner.