KAUSHALYA DEVI Vs. HARI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of learned Addl.District Judge, Rohtak, dated 1.9.1990, who in terms of Order VII Rule 10 (1) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'), after returning the plaint, directed the parties to appear before the Court at Sonepat, which had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Acr, 1955 (for short,'the Act').

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, against her husband in the Civil Court at Rohtak. In the reply, it was pleaded that the Civil Court at Rohtak, had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed in which issue No. 2 was as to "whether the Court at Rohtak has jurisdiction to try this petition ?. In view of the agreement between the parties, issue No. 2 was treated as preliminary issue on which both the parties led their respective evidence. Appellant appeared as PW-1 and examined Vijay as PW-2. Besides, she produced certificates Ex.P1 and Ex.P-2.