Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
S. Datta
MONIKA DAS GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
PROMODE KUMAR ROY - Respondent
Suit 1609 Of 1958
Decided On : NOVEMBER 26, 1959
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - JURISDICTION - CITY CIVIL COURT - EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION - HIGH COURT - NO JURISDICTION - PETITION UNDER HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - TO BE PRESENTED TO CITY CIVIL COURT - COURT FEES - CREDIT TO BE GIVEN FOR FEES PAID IN HIGH COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner filed a petition for declaration that her marriage with the respondent is null and void due to the respondent's impotency. The petitioner valued the relief at Rs. 50,000/-. The question arose as to whether the High Court or the City Civil Court had jurisdiction to hear the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the City Civil Court had exclusive jurisdiction to hear the petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, despite the relief being valued at more than Rs. 10,000/-.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court or the City Civil Court had jurisdiction to hear the petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? 2. Whether the definition of 'District Court' in Section 3 of the Act could alter the substantive provision in Section 19 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, conferred exclusive jurisdiction to the City Civil Court to hear petitions under the Act, irrespective of the pecuniary jurisdiction. 2. The definition of 'District Court' in Section 3 of the Act, when read with Section 19, made it clear that the City Civil Court had exclusive jurisdiction to hear petitions under the Act.
Final Decision: The Court directed that the petition be returned for presentation to the City Civil Court and that the City Civil Court, in levying any court fees payable by the petitioner, shall give credit for any court fees already paid by the petitioner in the High Court.
( 1 ) ON the 19th day of September, 1958 the petitioner Monika Das Gupta falsely called Monika Roy filed this petition for declaration that the marriage between her and Promode Kumar Roy performed on 8-2-1958 is null and void.
( 2 ) ON 8-2-1958 the petitioner who was then a spinster of about 26 years of age was married to Promode Kumar Roy then a bachelor of about 35 years of age at No. 54a Amherst Street in the town of Calcutta.
( 3 ) THE petitioner and the respondent lived and cohabited from the said 8th day of February, 1958 until the 5th day of March, 1958 at 54a Amherst Street, Calcutta and 12/1a Hindustan Park, Calcutta. The respondent never consummated the marriage by carnal copulation, for according to the petitioner the respondent was, by reason of his impotency or malformation, legally incompetent to consummate the said marriage and to enter into the said marriage.
( 4 ) ON or about 13-2-1958 the petitioner disclosed the fact of impotency of her husband to Shephali Das Gupta, wife of the petitioner's brother.
( 5 ) ON or about 25-5-1959 an order for amendment of the petition was directed. The amended petition contains the following paragraph:"that your petitioner comas of a respectable vaidya family and has suffered a good deal because of the facts hereinbefore stated. That your petitioner states that the claim in this suit cannot be adequately valued but she values the relief in this suit for the purpose of jurisdiction only at Rs. 50,000/. That this Hon'ble High Court and not the Calcutta City Civil Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit. "
( 6 ) ON 18-9-1959, this suit was heard as an undefended suit before me.
( 7 ) MONIKA Das Gupta said before me that her husband attempted to consummate the marriage on several occasions without success. This led her to guess that there was some malformation of the physical organ of her husband.
( 8 ) ON 13-2-1958 in answer to queries made by her sister-in-law, she disclosed about her husband's impotency. Her Boudi, 'shephali Das' Gupta then disclosed this unfortunate matter to her father-in-law, that is to say, father of the petitioner. Thereafter her father sent for Dr. Achudananda Sarkar who talked the matter over with the respondent and made a" appointment for examination of the respondent by a specialist.
( 9 ) SHEPHALI Das Gupta, sister-in-law of the petitioner substantially corroborated the evidence of the petitioner before me,
( 10 ) MR. Tamanash Chandra Das Gupta, father of the petitioner and Principal, Nabagram Hiralal College, Konnagar, said that on 19th February the deplorable information reached his ears through Shephali along with his daughter who was there. He thought over the matter and sent for Dr. Achudananda Sarkar.
( 11 ) MR. Das Gupta further said that on the 20th February, 1959 Promode Kumar Roy agreed to be examined by a Specialist. On the next morning, however, Promode Kumar refused to be examined by a Specialist.
( 12 ) DR. Achudananda Sarkar said that he was called on 20-2-1958 to examine Promode Roy.
( 13 ) ON 20-2-1958, he agreed to be examined by a. Specialist or to have some pathological examination. On the next day Promode refused to have either pathological examination or consult a Specialist.
( 14 ) DR. Sarkar further said that he decided to have pathological examination first and thereafter, if necessary, he would consult Dr. Souren Ghose, F. R. C. S. , Specialist in venereal diseases.
( 15 ) ON the evidence before me I hold that the respondent Promode Kumar Roy was impotent and incapable of consummating the marriage.
( 16 ) THIS finding in favour of the petitioner, however, does not conclude the matter for this petition gives rise to a question relating to the jurisdiction of the High Court in its Original Civil, jurisdiction to hear and determine such suits and/or proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act.
( 17 ) IN order to appreciate the point in issue St is necessary to advert to some of the section
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
