SURINDER KUMAR Vs. DARSHAN KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Surinder Kumar was married to Darshna Kumari respondent on January 22, 1980, according to Hindu rites at Nuh. After marriage the parties lived together as husband and wife at Delhi till August, 1987. No issue was born out of this wed-lock. The petitioner was under treatment at A.I.I.M.S., New Delhi, for partial sterlity and the respondent lived with her parents at RZ - 31, Manas Kunj, Vitam Nagar, New Delhi under medical advice. In December, 1989 she filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in a Court at Gurgaon in which a compromise was later on effected and marriage of the parties was dissolved before the Lok Adalat at Gurgaon on December 22, 1990. Prior to that the respondent had moved an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. on December 20,1989 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon which was subsequently transferred to Nuh, as a court had been established there. The respondent alleged in that petition that she had no source of income and that she was residing with her brother at Nuh. The various allegations made in the application were con reverted to by the petitioner and he also raised an objection that the respondent was not residing at Nuh and the Court at Nuh had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties on the point of jurisdiction which was treated as preliminary the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nuh found that court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and dismissed the same vide his order dated December 23, 1991. Against that order the respondent preferred a revision petition which was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon and the order of the trial Court was set aside. It is this order of the learned Sessions Judge dated September 10, 1992 that has been assailed by the petitioner by way of this revision petition.

(2.) I have heard Mr. M.S. Khaira, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Vij, the learned counsel for the respondent and have perused the record.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that although marriage of the parties was performed at Nuh, the parties thereafter resided in Delhi and the respondent was residing at the house of her father in Manas Kunj, Rajauri Road, Vttam Nagar, New Delhi. Even in her petition for dissolution of marriage, which was filed in a court at Gurgaon, the respondent had given her address as that of Delhi. There had been various types of litigation between the parties and in all the proceedings the respondent never mentioned here self as a resident of Nuh. In all the documents copies of which were placed on this file; the residential address of the respondent was that of Delhi. The court at Nuh had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. and the application was rightly dismissed by the learned trial court after referring to the numerous documents placed on record showing that Darshana Kumari was a resident of Delhi and she never resided with her brother at Nuh. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the trial Court without referring to the numerous documents placed on record showing that the documents upon which reliance was placed by the trial Court. The only evidence produced by the respondent in the trial Court to show that she was a resident of Nuh consisted of a ration card of her brother and a certificate issued by one Municipal Commissioner of Nuh that she was residing there. The ration card did not contain her name and the certificate of the Municipal Commissioner was not of any evidentiary value in the face of various documents and affidavits sworn by the respondent herself giving her address as that of Delhi.