1963 Supreme(AP) 205
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GOPAL RAO, P.CHANDRA REDDY
A.Rajamma - Appellant
Versus
A.Krishnama Naidu - Respondent
Decided On : 11-07-63
The Additional District Judge has the jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of petitions under the Hindu Marriage Act when assigned by the District Judge.
Headnote:
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - JURISDICTION - ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE - POWER TO DISPOSE OF PETITIONS UNDER THE ACT - WHETHER COMPETENT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge to dispose of a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, arguing that only the District Judge or a specifically authorized Judge could handle such matters.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Additional District Judge had the authority to dispose of the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Issues: Whether the Additional District Judge had the jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of petitions under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act mandates that petitions under the Act be presented to the District Court within whose jurisdiction the marriage was solemnized or where the spouses reside or last resided together. 2. Section 3(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act defines "district Court" as the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or any other civil court specified by the State Government. 3. Section 3-A of the Madras Civil Courts Act empowers the State Government to appoint Additional District Judges to the District Court, who can discharge all or any functions of the District Judge. 4. The Additional District Judge is appointed to the District Court and functions within it, and the District Judge can assign cases to them. 5. The expression "district Court" includes the Additional District Judge, and the Additional District Judge can exercise the same powers as the District Judge.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the Additional District Judge.
( 1 ) IN this appeal against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Chittoor, accepting the husbands petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the only point raised is that it was not competent for the Additional District Judge to deal with petitions under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as these matters are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the District Judge or such other Judge on whom jurisdiction to deal with these matters is specifically conferred by the State Government. It is urged that the Additional District Judge, Chittoor is not invested with power to dispose of petitions under the Hindu Marriage Act and as such he had no jurisdiction to dispose of the petition under Section 9 of that Act presented by the husband in this case.
( 2 ) THE answer to this contention depends on the interpretation to be placed on the relevant provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and the Madras Civil Courts Act, (III of 1873 ). As the controversy here revolves round Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Sections 3 and 3-A of the Madras Civil Courts Act, it is profitable to read them here. Section 19, which relates to the jurisdiction of Courts to entertain petitions under the Hindu Marriage Act, runs as follows:-"every petition under this Act shall be presented to the District Court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction the marriage was solemnised or the husband and wife reside or last resided together. "
( 3 ) "district Court" is defined in Section 3 (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 thus: "district Court" means, in any area for which there is a city civil Court, that Court, and in any other area the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, and includes any other civil Court which may be specified by the State. Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, as having jurisdiction in respect of the matters dealt with in this Act. "
( 4 ) IT is urged by Sri G. Suryanarayana, learn-ed counsel for the appellant, the wife, that the Court of the Additional District Judge cannot fall within the contemplation of the expressions "district Court" and the "principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction". Nor can the latter part of the definition in clause (b) apply to the instant case, as the relevant notifications issued by the State Government do not include the Additional Judge, Chittoor.
( 5 ) BEFORE we extract Section 3-A of the Madras Civil Courts Act in the light of which the problem that poses itself in this case has to be solved, it is necessary to state that in this case the petition has been presented in the District Court and the District Judge made it over to the Additional District Judge. We have referred to this fact as this, to a large extent, knocks down the foundation of the argument presented by the learned counsel for the appellant. Section 3-A of the Madras Civil Courts Act postulates:"when in the opinion of the High Court, the state of business pending before the Judge of any District Court, (hereinafter called the District Judge) so requires, the (State Government) may appoint one or more Additional District Judges to that Court for such period as they may deem necessary. The Additional District Judge so appointed shall discharge all or any of the functions of the District Judge under this Act or any other law for the time being in force which the District Judge may assign to them, and, in the discharge of those functions they shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge. "
( 6 ) ON the language of the Section, the power of a District Judge to make over the cases that were filed in the District Court cannot admit of any doubt. This also makes it clear that the Addl. District Judges are appointed to the District Court. In others words, the Additional District Judge also functions in the District Court. In our State, there is no separate Court of the Additional District Court. There are only Additional Judges appointed to the Distri