Suman Shyam, J.

Heard Mr. D.K. Deori, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. None appears for the sole respondent, despite the name of the learned counsel having being duly reflected in the cause list.

3. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.05.2015 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, East Sessions Division, Tezu, Arunachal Pradesh in connection with marriage Title Matrimonial Suit No. 09(L) 2011, granting a decree of divorce under Section 13(i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in favour of the respondent/petitioner (Husband).

4. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent got married to the appellant on 24.05.1996, as per Hindu custom and religion in presence of their relatives. The appellant is a resident of village Lalanpur Police Station Madhubani, District-Mau, Uttar Pradesh. After the marriage they resided together as husband and wife in the district Gorakhpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Out of the wed lock a male child was born to them on 07.12.1998. However, soon thereafter problems started cropping up in their matrimonial life, in as much as the appellant started misbehaving with the patents of the respondents, taking advantage of the absence of the respondent who had to continue to reside in Sunpura, P.O./P.S. Sunpura, Lohit District, Arunachal Pradesh in connection with his job.

5. It is the case of the respondent/petitioner that whenever he went back on leave, the respondent used to misbehave with him. It is also alleged that the appellant had left the matrimonial house in the month of November 2008 and since then she has been residing at her parents house till date. All efforts on the part of the respondent to bring her back along with their son ended in failure. The respondent has further alleged that the appellant had once burnt down his documents including bank pass book and cheque book and has also attacked his family members as a result of which an FIR had to be lodged at the Madhuban Police Station. On the basis of such allegations the respondent/petitioner had presented the petition seeking a decree of divorce against the appellant (wife) the ground of cruelty and desertion.

6. The appellant (wife) had contested the divorce proceeding by filing written statement inter alia questioning the maintainability of the proceeding for want of cause of action. The appellant had also denied the allegation made in the petition and prayed for dismissal of the divorce petition.

7. On the basis of the pleadings the learned trial Court had framed the following issues:

I. Whether suit is maintainable under the law and fact?

II. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for two years before filing of the instant suit?

III. Whether the respondent had Heated die plaintiff with cruelty?

IV. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of divorce?

V. Whether this Court can give any other relief?

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the learned Court below had decreed the suit filed by the respondent (husband).

9. By drawing the attention of this Court to the findings and conclusions recorded by the Court below, Mr. Deori submits that the appellant (wife), who was the respondent in the divorce proceeding, admittedly was a resident of the State of Uttar Pradesh who had never resided together as husband & wife with the present respondent within the State of Arunachal Pradesh at any point of time. The suit filed by the respondent as petitioner was not maintainable since the learned District Judge, Tezu, Arunachal Pradesh did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the aforementioned suit.

10. By referring to the Provisions of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Mr. Deori submits that the learned Court below had committed manifest legality in holding the suit to be maintainable by rejecting the plea of the appellant as regards the lack of territorial jurisdiction on the part of the Court below to entertain the suit.

11. The lear