The trial Court erred in returning the divorce petition based on jurisdictional objections, which should be addressed during trial, not prior to numbering the petition.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the Docket order dated 07.08.2024 passed in H.M.O.P. SR.No.3030 of 2024 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kovvur (for short “the trial Court”).

2. The present impugned HMOP (SR) No.3030 of 2024 was filed by the petitioner/husband on the file of the trial Court for divorce against the respondent/wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956.

3. The facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was performed on 22.08.2021 at Sri Umachandrasekhara Swamy-Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple at Chikkala village of Chagallu Mandal as per Hindu religion rites and customs. The petitioner is working in Dubai. From the beginning the respondent/wife states that she is not willing for the marriage with the petitioner but she agreed for the marriage on the pressure of her parent only. The petitioner informed to the respondent that he will return within three months but due to work pressure and non availability of permission he is unable to return India within three months. After one week of the marriage, the respondent left to her parent’s house. Thereafter, when the petitioner returned to India, he requested the respondent to join with him at Chikkala, but the parents of the respondent raised dispute before the elders and gave a false complaint before Undi police Station. Then the police admonished the respondent and her parents. The respondent voluntarily deserted the petitioner and neglected him without any fault of him. Since March 2022, both the petitioner and the respondent are living separately without any conjugal life. It is stated that the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty and caused lot of mental agony and also deserted him and that there are no chances for reunion between the petitioner and the respondent. Having vexed with the attitude of the respondent, the petitioner/husband decided to dissolve his marriage with the respondent as there is no chance for the reunion. Therefore the present impugned HMOP (SR) has been filed before the trial Court. But the trail Court returned the said HMOP SR, with an objection for proof of lastly residing address particulars of the petitioner in the jurisdiction and therefore the petition is returned with a direction to the petitioner to file this petition before the jurisdiction of the respondent where presently she reside. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition came to be filed.

4. Heard Sri P. Rama Rayudu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.V.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the docket order of the trial Court is illegal, arbitrary and against the settled propositions of law. He submits that the trial Court failed to understand the scope of Section 19 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the settled legal position of law holding the field and refused to receive the petition and number the same. he submits that the trial Court erred in holding that Petitioner/husband cannot invoke its jurisdiction under section 19 (1) of the Hindu Marriage, 1955, where the marriage was solemnized between the Petitioner/husband and the Respondent/wife as the same is a contest divorce and also erred in holding that though statue provides for filing the divorce petition at the place where the marriage took place, the object of the legislature in lieu of section 19 (iiia) of the Hindu Marriage, 1955, permits the filing of the petition only at the place where the wife is residing. He submits that the object of the legislature in cases of contested divorce petition is that the petition must be filed only at the place where the wife is residing and rest all options enumerated in section 19 of the Hindu Marriage, 1955, must be overlooked as the object of the legislature prevails over the statute.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed for a