The applicant is aggrieved by order dated 27/03/2014 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Amravati below Exhibit24 thereby rejecting the application filed by the applicant under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code). The applicant was married with the non-applicant on 31/01/2009 at Paratwada. The parties thereafter resided together at Indore. On account of some matrimonial disputes, the non-applicant was compelled to leave the matrimonial home on 28/10/2011 and reside with her parents at Amravati. Thereafter on 28/11/2012, the non-applicant filed proceedings before the Family Court at Amravati under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, the said Act) for grant of maintenance. In those proceedings the applicant moved an application under Section 9A of the Code raising a plea of the Court at Amravati had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings inasmuch as no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of said Court. According to applicant, as the marriage was solemnized at Paratwada, Dist. Amravati, the Court there would have jurisdiction. The application was opposed by the non-applicant and by the impugned order the learned Judge of the Family Court held that as part of cause of action had arisen at Amravati where non-applicant was residing with her parents, the application raising objection to the territorial jurisdiction was liable to be rejected.

2. Shri P. S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the contentions as raised in the application below Exhibit24. He submitted that as per provisions of Section 20(a) of the Code, the Court at Amravati had no jurisdiction whatsoever inasmuch as the marriage had been solemnized at Paratwada and thereafter the parties were residing at Indore. Since no cause of action or even part thereof had arisen at Amravati, the Family Court there has no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions :

(i) Neeta Deelipkumar Suchak v. Deelipkumar Mohanlal Suchak, AIR 1983 Bom 235.

(ii) Arun Kumar Bedi v. Anjana Bedi AIR 1984 Cal 49.

(iii) Ashok Laxman Kale v. Ujwala Ashok Kale 2007(1) Bom.C.R. 16.

(iv) Pankaj Suryakant Lohar v. Mayuri Pankaj Lohar 2002(4) Mh.L.J. 828.

3. Shri N. A. Gawande, the learned counsel for the non-applicant supported the impugned order and submitted that as the non-applicant was not being maintained by the applicant, she was constrained to leave the matrimonial house and reside with her parents at Amravati. He submitted that the learned Judge of the Family Court rightly placed reliance upon judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Sucheta Dilip Ghate and anr. vs. Dilip Shantaram Ghate 2003(4) Mh.L.J. 445 while rejecting the objection raised by the applicant. According to the learned counsel, provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the said Act would be required to be read in conjunction with one another and for said purpose, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Padmja Sharma vs. Ratan Lal Sharma 2000(4) SCC 266. He also submitted that the objection in question to the territorial jurisdiction had been raised belatedly and hence same was not liable to be entertained.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and I have given due consideration to their respective submissions. Under provisions of Section 18(2) of the said Act, a Hindu wife is entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her right to claim maintenance subject to certain situations. These situations are contemplated by sub clauses (a) to (g) of Section 18(2) of the said Act. Thus if the entitlement to live separately from her husband is recognised and such separate residence does not have the effect of forfeiting her claim to maintenance, it would be obvious th