( 1 ). Issue summons to defendant in the ordinary process, by registered A. D. Post, electronic mail as well as facsimile, returnable for 12th March, 2003. Service be effected on all the addresses disclosed in the plaint. I. A. 576 of 2003:

( 2 ) ISSUE notice of this application to the defendant, returnable on 12th March, 2003.

( 3 ) MATRIMONIAL disputes between estranged spouses are the most bitterly fought litigation raising myriad awkward questions. Not unoften, the jurisdiction of more than one Court can be invoked where the husband and wife have started residing in different territories, either nationally or internationally. It must then be decided that from amongst them which Court should be best suited and therefore competent to exercise jurisdiction. Where the choice is between Forums within the same nation or community of countries, the difficulty is usually easily resolved. Judges within the same national boundaries tend to be open to relinquishing their jurisdiction in favour of the Court most conveniently placed, keeping the parties in view. Regretfully, this does not happen where trans-border challenges are laid by the sparring spouses, as even Judges who are normally intellectually liberated and not parochial, succumb to innate chauvinism. The endeavour of Judges in every corner of the world should be to look only towards alleviating the human suffering that is endemic in every matrimonial dispute, since persons who may otherwise be willing to forgo their rights and go a long way to arrive at a compromise in other litigation, would fight to the very end. I have passed these orders after fresh reflection, and would be subject to modification after hearing the respondent.

( 4 ) A startlingly similar situation to that in the present case had arisen before me over three years ago in the dispute between the newly married Anubha who was domiciled in India till her marriage to her husband Vikas, who was gainfully employed and resident in the United States of America. Shortly after their marriage in India and their departure to United States of America, she was allegedly compelled by the conduct of Vikas to leave the matrimonial home. Lacking necessary financial resources, and other support, she was compelled to return to india. She filed an action in the High Court of Delhi, for maintenance under the hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, in the course of which the following orders were passed on 5. 11. 1999.

"ia. 10872/99 in S. No. 1966/99: arguments in this case had been heard on 1. 11. 1999 and orders were reserved by me. Since I had intended to research the matter particularly in regard to the position prevailing in the EEC countries the orders could not be pronounced. It will also be appropriate to mention that there has been a delay in hearing the matter for the reason that the defendant Mr. Vikas Agrawal had not filed his replies in this Court within the time permitted to him. The matter was mentioned before me in the morning and pursuant to notice issued to the defendant, Mr. S. D. Singh, learned Counsel for the defendant as present in Court. The next date of proceedings in the United States of America are scheduled for 9. 11. 1999 and due to the Court vacations it is not possible to pronounce the orders before that date. It is submitted that if hearing takes place in the Courts at Connecticut, U. S. A. these proceedings may be rendered infructuous. I feel compelled to record that the plaintiff before me is undoubtedly residing in India and has neither submitted to the jurisdiction of the American Courts nor is presently represented by Counsel before that Court. She is, therefore, not in a position to draw the attention of that Court to the fact that, since the parties have married in India, Indian Court would definitely and indisputably have jurisdiction in deciding matrimonial issues at least under the Hindu marriage Act. No doubt, it has been contended before me that the Hindu adoptions and M