The provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be brought into play in cases where the conditions of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be satisfied, as they do not conflict with the provisions of Section 19.

JUDGMENT - 1. The applicant Hariram has filed this application against the order of the Assistant Judge, Nagpur, in Civil Appeal No. 200-A of 1960, rejecting his appeal against an order under Order 7, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, by which the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur returned his peti-tion for granting a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for presentation to proper Court.

2. No appearance is put in on behalf of the opponent though names of two counsel are shown as having entered appearance on behalf of the opponent. Shri R. N. Deshpande, an Advocate of this Court, intimated at the commencement of the hearing that Shri K. S. Mishra was in charge of the case and he had no instructions. I have declined to adjourn the hearing as the case was posted as first case on todays board of which notice was duly given in the Daily Board.

3. The case of the applicant is that he was married under Hindu law to the opponent Shrimati Jasoti in August 1944 at Karachi in Sindh before the partition. There is no doubt that Karachi is now a part of Pakistan and therefore a foreign territory. The allegation in the plaint is that about six months prior to the partition, the applicant discovered that his wife [the opponent) had deceived him into marriage and that she was not faithful. They therefore separated while in Karachi about six months prior to the partition. That partition of India took place on and from 15th August 1947. As soon as the scheme for partition was launched the applicant came to India and so did the opponent Jasoti but separately. The applicants case is that after having separated from his wife at Karachi itself about six months prior to partition, they never resided together and in fact he was not aware of the whereabouts of his wife since partition. The applicant took a job in Delhi and is now serving, with the Government of India as a gazetted Officer in the Export Import Department of the Central Ministry. It is alleged that the opponent Shrimati Jasoti is employed in the Telephone Department at Nagpur and is alleged to be staying with someone in adultery at Nagpur. The applicant, did not know about the whereabouts of his wife till 1953 when some correspondence seems to have commenced between the two. Thereafter the applicant came to Nagpur and made enquiries and learnt that the opponent was leading an adulterous life. He therefore filed an application in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, on 30th August 1959, claiming a decree for divorce on the ground that the opponent was living in adultery.

4. When the case was taken up by the Presiding Officer of that Court, it appears the case proceeded ex parte against the opponent. But the learned Judge felt some doubt about his jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the applicant. The applicant has disclosed the cause of action for his petition in paragraph 13 of his application as follows :

"That the cause of action for petition arose in August, 1944, and January, 1946, and in years 1948, 49, 50, of till today between the parties and when the respondent, deserted the petitioner and continued to live in adultery respectively at Karachi and Nagpur, within the territorial limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this court and this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to try this suit." This passage is now explained by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant to mean that the opponent is living an adulterous life since they separated while in Karachi itself, and that they never have been together since separation in Karachi six months prior to the partition.

5. The learned Judge of the original Court referring to Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act held that the conditions of that section for invoking the jurisdiction of his Court were not satisfied inasmuch as neither was the marriage solemnised within the jurisdiction of his Court, nor was it the case that the husband and wife resided or last resided to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document