JUDGMENT - (1) This is an applcation in revision from the judgment of the District Judge, Amraoti, holding that the appeal preferred before him in matrimonial proceedings under the Hindu Marrage Act was maintainable. The circumstances which have led to this revision application may be briefly stated as follows: The husband started proceedings for restitutuion of conjugal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act against his wife. That petition having been dismissed by the Third Additional District Judge, the husband went up in appeal to the District Court in Civil Appeal No. 10-A of 1957. A preliminary objection was raised o behalf of the wife contending that the appeal did not lie to the district court, but that the appeal sould have been properly filed efore the High Court. On this preliminary objections, the District Judge, after examining the relevant provisions, came to the conclusion that the appeal to the District Court was competent. It is from that decision that the present revision application has been directed. The application was heard by Mr. Justice Badkas. He found that appeals are being filed in the High Court from the decisions of the additional Judges in a number of cases and therefore the question is of general importance. He has therefore the question is of general importance. He has therefore referred the matter to a Division Bench for a more atuhoritative decision.

(2) In order to appreciate the question of th competency of the appeal it is necessary to refer first to the provsions of the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 19 of that Act provides that 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 solemnizsed or the husband and wife reside or last resided together. The definition of a District Court is contained inclause (b) of Section 3 of the same Act under hich a District Court means 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. The only other provision towhich reference need be made is Section 28 of the Act, which lays own that all decrees and orders made by the Court in any proceeding under this Act may be appealed from under any law for the time being in force. It will thus be seen that the District Court has been constituted as the Court having exclusive jurisdiction under the Act and it will continue to exercise such jurisdiction until the State specifies any other civil Court as having jurisdiction in these matters. So far as this area is concerned, no notification has yet been issued specifying any other civil Court as a District Court or the purpose of the Hindu Marriage Act. It would also appearthat the District Court cannot transfer the procedings to any other civil Court for trial. Of course, this does not affect the power of the District Juege, as the officer presiding over the District Court to refer the proceedings for decision to the Additional District Judge attached to the same Court. His power, however, does not stem from the order of reference or distribution of business, but from the factthat the Additional District Judge is part and parcel of the District Court.

(3) In view of the provision of Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act in order to determine the forum to which appeals are to be preferred we have to consider the provision of other enactments. The relevant enactment in this respect is the Central Provinces and berar Courts Act, 1917. That Act contemplates two classes of courts; (I) the Court of the civil judge and (ii) the district Court. Section 20 of the Act deals with the appellate jurisdiction of the courts. Clause (a) relates to an appeal from the decree or order of the Court of a civil Judge and it lays down that first appeal would lie to the District Court. Clause (b) is div

Click Here to Read the rest of this document