KANCHAN BALA ROY Vs. KHAGENDRA CHANDRA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the time of admission of this appeal Mr. P. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant raised two substantial questions of law. Both the questions of law were formulated on 22.9.82 by this Court. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that if the first question of law as formulated is disposed of in favour of the appellant, the second point may not be required for consideration. The first substantial question of law in this appeal it as to whether the suit of the plaintiff was maintainable in view of the provisions of Sec. 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? To appreciate the submission of Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant, a little bit of discussion on the facts of the case would be necessary. The respondent is the husband of the appellant. As plaintiff, the respondent brought a suit being Title Suit No. "95 of 1980 in the court of the learned Sadar Munsiff No. 2, Cachar at Silchar for a declaration that the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant be declared as void and also for further relief that the decree arising out of Case No. 5 M of 1974 was not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff challenged the marriage between him and the defendant and as such approached the Munsiff by way of a suit. The appellant/defendant appeared in the suit and filed written statement denying the contentions made by the plaintiff in the plaint. The defendant also challenged the jurisdiction of the Munsiff to try the suit. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Munsiff framed as may as 5 issues out of which issue No. 2 was most relevant which is also subject -matter for consideration in this appeal involving the substantial question as formulated by this Court. The parties adduced evidence oral as well as documentary in the trial court. The learned munsiff, however decreed the suit of the plaintiff as against which the defendant preferred an appeal in the court of the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Cachar at Silebar. The learned appellate court did not find any material to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and, as such, affirmed the same. This appeal in against the said judgment and decree of the teamed appellate court.

(2.) Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant while canvassing the first point of law as formulated in this appeal, - has submitted before me very correctly that though the plaintiff was given liberty to approach the Civil Court by the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 186/76 if the plaintiff fails aggrieved by the order passed in the maintenance case, it did not certainly mean the Munsiff's Court. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention the provisions of Sec. 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Sec. 19 prescribes the jurisdiction and procedure of a case instituted under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act. Sec. 19 runs as follows:

(3.) On bare perusal of the provisions of Sec. 19 of the Act as quoted above it appears that a petition under any of the provisions of Hindu marriage Act shall have to be presented to the District Court having the original local limits and having ordinary civil jurisdiction. It is only the district court as defined in Sec. 3(3) of the Act that has jurisdiction to entertain and try the matters arising under this Act. This Sec. regulates the venue and lays down that any petition under this Act either for judicial separation or divorce or for a declaration of marriage as void or nullity, shall have to be presented to the district court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction the marriage was solemnized or the husband and wife reside or last resided together. Sec. 3(b) of the Act defines the district court. The "district court" as defined means - -