AJIT KUMAR BHUNIA Vs. KANAN BALA DEYI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Rule a short point arises for consideration. The point, however, is of considerable and far-reaching importance and it has assumed some amount or complexity too, due to certain recent judicial pronouncements. The question, involved, is the question of jurisdiction of the learned Additional District Judges, or, rather, the Additional Judges, under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act and other sister statutes. It covers a wide field and its decision one way or the other, may amount to much for the administration of law in this State, nay, for the entire Union, over the whole of which its reaction may be felt in varying degrees. But for the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. The State of Punjab, the petitioner, who challenges the lower court's jurisdiction in the instant case before us, could have possibly advanced no argument whatsoever. The decisions of this Court, which may have any bearing on the above question of jurisdiction, are practically uniform and unanimous and all in one way, barring one or two which, again, appear to be covered by a Full Bench decision of this Court, and they are all against the petitioner. The petitioner, however, seeks to re-open the said question and he claims a decision in his favour, relying upon the above decision of the Supreme Court and upon the later Punjab High Court decision (Janak Dulari v. Narayan Dass, purporting to explain the above Supreme Court decision and apply the same to the Punjab statute, the Punjab Courts Act, (Act VI of 1918).

(2.) The point arises in this way. The petitioner, as husband, instituted Suit No. 27 of 1957 in the court of the District Judge of Midnapore, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of his marriage with the opposite party who was his wife by the said marriage. Fox our present purpose, it is not necessary to recite the various allegations, on which the above suit was founded, nor it is necessary to advert to any of the various defences or counter-allegations which were taken or made to the suit by the wife opposite party. It is enough to state, for purposes of this Rule that, on or about the 22nd August, 1958, the learned District Judge transferred the aforesaid suit to the First Court of the Additional District Judge, Midnapore, for disposal and, thereupon, on or about March 16, 1959, the petitioner filed, before the learned Additional District Judge, Sri Tapendra Kumar Pal, an application contending, inter alia, that the said learned Judge had no jurisdiction to try the aforesaid suit and praying for re-transfer of the same to the learned District Judge. The petitioner's contention was that, in view of the terms of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, read with the definition Section (Section 3(b)), the District Judge and the District Judge alone had jurisdiction to entertain and try the instant suit and, in the absence of any Notification of the State Government, empowering him to try such suits, the learned Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction in the matter, notwithstanding the transfer (assignment) to him by the learned District Judge, such transfer, though, presumably, under Section 8(2) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, not being, according to the petitioner, competent, -- and not purporting also --to confer jurisdiction, not possessed by the transferee court. The petitioner's contention was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge. Hence the present Rule.

(3.) Under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, every petition under the said Act has to be