The jurisdiction of a court to entertain a petition under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, is determined by whether any part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction, and leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent cannot confer jurisdiction if it initially lacked jurisdiction.

Headnote:
HINDU ADOPTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956 - SECTION 18 - JURISDICTION - CAUSE OF ACTION - MAINTENANCE - CRUELTY - DESERTION - LETTERS PATENT, CLAUSE 12 - LEAVE GRANTED - NO JURISDICTION INITIALLY - LEAVE IMMATERIAL - SOCIAL LEGISLATION - NO CONSIDERATION.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a Hindu wife, filed a petition under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, seeking maintenance and other reliefs from her husband and his family members. The petitioner alleged cruelty and constructive desertion by her husband. The petition was filed in the Bombay High Court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, which allowed the court to exercise jurisdiction if a part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. The respondents challenged the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that no part of the cause of action had arisen in Bombay.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. The acts of cruelty and desertion alleged by the petitioner had taken place in Kalyan, which was outside the court's jurisdiction. The court noted that the petitioner had obtained leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, but held that this could not extend the court's jurisdiction if it initially lacked jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Whether any part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. 2. Whether the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent could confer jurisdiction on the court if it initially lacked jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and held that the right to maintenance under the Act was conditional upon the circumstances mentioned in the section, including cruelty and desertion. 2. The court interpreted Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and held that the court could exercise jurisdiction if a part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction, but this did not apply in the present case as no part of the cause of action had arisen in Bombay. 3. The court held that the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent could not extend the court's jurisdiction if it initially lacked jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The Notice of Motion filed by the petitioner was also dismissed.

JUDGMENT - D.N. MEHTA, J.:---The petitioner herein Neeta Deelipkumar Suchak, has filed this petition in forma pauperis against her husband-respondent No. 1, her husband's three brothers-respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 5 as also against her father-in-law respondent No. 4, and two Companies-respondent Nos. 6 and 7 being presumable the Partnership Firms of respondents Nos. 1 to 5. The petitioner has prayed firstly that she may be permitted to sue in forma pauperis; Secondly, that, the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 be ordered and decreed to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of the petition ; thirdly, the petitioner prays for a decree against the respondents for the sum of Rs. 27,528/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from 21-10-1979 till payment ; fourthly, the petitioner has prayed that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 be ordered to return to the petitioner articles and things mentioned in Exhibit 'D' to the petition, or in the alternative, in the event of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 failing to return her articles and things a decree for the sum of Rs. 45,000/- be passed against them together with interest thereon at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till payment ; fifthly, the petitioner has prayed that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 be called upon to render account to the petitioner on the footing of wilful default in respect of the income accruing to the petitioner or standing to her credit or payable to her in any of the businesses mentioned by her in her petition together with interest on the said amount that may be ascertained on taking such accounts at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till payment ; sixthly, the petitioner has prayed that respondents Nos. 1 to 5 be ordered and decreed to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 95,000/- as arrears of maintenance for a period of three years prior to the date of the suit with interest thereon at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till payment ; seventhly, the petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the petitioner had a charge on the immovable properties belonging to respondents Nos. 1 of 5 in respect of the amounts that may be decreed by this Court and in the event of the failure on the part of the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 to pay the said amount, for an Order of sale of the said immovable properties so charged; eighthly, the petitioner has prayed that inquiries be made, directions be given and order passed, and accounts be taken for the purposes aforesaid. Lastly, the petitioner has prayed for costs of the petition.

2. After the filing of the petition, the petitioner took out a Notice of Motion bearing No. 495 of 1982 for interim maintenance. The notice of Motion appeared before my learned brother Kania, J. The parties took a consent order before Kania, J. on 30-8-1982. Under the said order respondent No. 1 agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance for the son Jai from 1-9-1982. Kania, J., order that the petition and the Notice of Motion be placed on board for trial of preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction on 29-11-1982 peremptorily.

3. The petition has now appeared before me for the trial of preliminary issue of jurisdiction of this Court.

4. Before I deal with the submissions made by the learned Advocates of the parties, it will be pertinent to set out a few facts. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 were married according to Hindu Religious Rites and ceremonies on 15th February, 1978 at Lohana Mahajan Wadi, Kalyan. According to the petitioner, the marriage was not registered. The petitioner stated that after her marriage she went to live with respondent No. 1 at his parent's place at Kalyan in Thane District. On 14th March, 1980, the petitioner gave birth to a male child named Jai at the Breach Candy Hospital, Bombay. After the birth of her son, the petitioner returned to the matrimonial home and remained there till 29th May, 1980, when according t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1983 Supreme(Bom) 116

Login now and unlock premium legal research