MYRTLE STEPHENSON Vs. ROBERT STEPHENSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After perusing the records we are unable to confirm under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act the decree for divorce granted by the learned District Judge dissolving the marriage of the petitioner, Mrs. Myrtle Stephenson. Any petition under section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act may be presented to the 'District Court' which, according to section 3, means the Court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose ordinary jurisdiction under this Act the husband and wife reside or last resided together. In the instant case the petitioner (wife) neither pleaded nor proved that she and the respondent No. 1 either reside or had last resided together within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge, 24 parganas.

(2.) The petitioner in para 1 of her petition averred, no doubt, that the marriage between the parties was registered at the Church of Christ King at 5, Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Police Station Beniapukur, District 24-Parganas within the jurisdiction of the District Judge's Court at 24 Parganas. But she pleaded in para 2 that a few days after marriage the respondent No. 1 had taken her to his temporary place of service at Railway Quarter, Block No.89, Warangal-3, Kazipet, Andhra Pradesh. Her further case was that immediately thereafter respondent No. 1 had began to treat her in the most cruel way and also at Warangal the respondent No. 1 had allegedly committed acts of adultery with the co-respondent No. 2. The petitioner further pleaded that she had information that the respondent No. 1 was still living in adultry with the co-respondent at Block No. 89, Warangal-3, Kazipet, Andhra Pradesh. She averred in para 5 that she had escaped from the clutches of the respondent No. 1 on 27th September, 1973 and had somehow managed to reach Calcutta and took shelter at her father's residence at 147/1, Karaya Road, Beniapukur, District 24 Parganas. In para 10 of the petition, she sought to invoke the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge, 24 Parganas, by pleading that the cause of action for the proceedings arose on the 8th August, 1973 and thereafter from day to day at 5, Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Police Station Beniapukur, district 24 Parganas where the marriage of the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnised within the jurisdiction of the District Judge.

(3.) We have already pointed out in view of the definition of 'District Court' in section 3 of the Indian Divorce Act the place where the marriage was solemnised would not be a criterion for conferring jurisdiction upon the District Judge, 24 Parganas to entertain the petition under section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. In order to invoke territorial jurisdiction of the District Court to entertain the instant petition, it must be established that either the parties still reside or had last resided together within the limits of territorial jurisdiction of the said Court. We have already pointed out that the petitioner herself had pleaded that the matrimonial home of the parties was at Warangal -3, Kazipet, Andhra Pradesh and as the said place they had last resided together, it is not necessary to quote the oral evidence given by the petitioner (wife) in view of the fact that at the time of the trial she had such to her case that eh matrimonial offences were committed by the respondent No. 1 at Warangal-3, Kazipet and at the said place she had last resided with her husband till she had escaped and reached Calcutta in September, 1973.