JUDGMENT

SEN, J. :— The short point involved in this appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, is whether the Court of the District Judge, Almora had jurisdiction to entertain the Petition for nullity of marriage filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. To bring out the point, it is necessary to state a few facts. It appears that the parties originally belonged to village Bagyan, District Pithoragarh, in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The appellants case is that they fell in love and she became enceinte, as the respondent had access to her during the period of courtship. Her case is that she wanted to marry the respondent, but her father was opposed to the alliance as her elder brother and sister were unmarried. She was therefore brought in an advanced stage of pregnancy to Delhi and through the intervention of her uncle Basant Kumar, the marriage was solemnised on Jan. 24, 1976 according to Arya Samaj rites at the Arya Samaj Mandir, Hanuman Road, New Delhi. Three days after the marriage. i.e. on January 27, 1976, the respondent left the residence of Basant Kumar on the pretext that he had to fetch his belongings from the residence of his uncle Dharm Nand Pant who also lives at Delhi. and never returned. On February 6, 1976, he served a notice on the appellant alleging that the marriage was a nullity as she got pregnant through someone else, that fraud was practised on him by her uncle Basant Kumar and that he had been coerced to marry her against his will. On February 17, 1976 she sent a reply denying the allegations made therein. On March 2, 1976 she filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act in the Court of Subordinate Judge. Class I, Delhi.

3. It may here be stated that although the appellant is a resident of Delhi as she lives with her uncle Basant Kumar at Lajwanti Garden, and the respondent was also a resident of Delhi being employed, at all material times, as Radio-Technician in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi, he started the present proceedings not at Delhi but at Almora.

4. On March 18, 1976 the respondent filed a petition for nullity of marriage under Section 12 of the Act in the Court of the District Judge, Almora alleging that the parties were residents of village Bagyan, District Pithoragarh, i. e. within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of District Judge, Almora. On March 23, 1976 i.e. just after five days of the filing of the petition under Section 12 of the Act the appellant delivered a dead child at Delhi.

5. On Feb. 25, 1977 the Subordinate Judge, Class I, Delhi decreed the appellants suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act. In decreeing her claim for restitution of conjugal rights, the learned Subordinate Judge observed :

"That to sum up the evidence adduced by Petitioner proves that the petitioner and respondent were known to each other and had developed sexual intimacy. It is further proved that the respondent married the petitioner at Delhi on 24-1-1976 of his own sweet free will according to Hindu rites. The petitioner delivered a dead child on 23-3-1976 would show that on the date of marriage, the petitioner was running in 7th month of pregnancy. Such advanced stage of pregnancy could not be hidden from the vision of any Person. The plea of respondent that he did not know on 24-1-1976 that the petitioner was pregnant cannot be believed. The respondent thus knew at the time of marriage that the petitioner was pregnant. The very fact that he married her of his own free will would justify the conclusion corroborated by other evidence and circumstances discussed above that the petitioner had conceived from the respondent and the respondent thus married her of his own free will." The judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge decreeing the appellants claim for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act was no,,