JOSHI, J.—This application wherein a show cause notice was given to the non-petitioner comes up for admission.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. It is contended that the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, has no jurisdiction to try the petition under sec 13(1 A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act as such petition could only be tried by the principal court of original jurisdiction, namely, the District Court, Jodhpur. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that unless (here is a notification of the State Government published in the official gazette authorising any other Civil Court to try the matters under the Hindu Marriage Act, the District Court is the only competent Court to try such matters. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Kuldip Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1) and Janak Dulari vs. Narain Das (2).

4. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner that the Additional District Judge has jurisdiction in the instant case as the petition in this case, in the first instance, was presented to the District Judge, who transferred the same to the Additional District Judge. It is submitted that the District Judge has power under sec. 10(3) of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance (VII) of 1950 to transfer a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act to the Additional District Judge. Once the petition is transferred by the District Judge to the Additional District Judge, the latter exercises the powers of the District Judge. According to the learned counsel for the non-petitioner the Additional District Judge is competent to exercise all the powers which are conferred upon a District Judge and try the petition. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on Pushpa Devi vs. Radhey Shyam (3) and Ajit Kumar vs. Kanan Bala (4).

5. I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the cither side. I may make mention of the decision of this court in Pushpa Devi Vs., Radhey Shyam (3). In this case exactly a similar point was raised before Kan Singh J., who has after taking not of sec. 10(3) of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance (VII) of 1950, held that once the petition under the Hindu Marriage Act is presented to the District Judge who transfers the same to the Additional District Judge, the latter is competent to exercise all the functions which are exercisable by the District Judge and competent to try the petition under the Hindu Marriage Act.

6. I am entirely in agreement with the view taken by Kan Singh J. under Sec. 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act all that is required is that the proceedings under the Act is to be started in the court of the District Judge and that the District Judge alone would have the power to entertain it. To put it differently, the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act are to be initiated before the District Judge, but once it is entertained by him it is certainly open to the District Judge to assign or transfer the proceedings under sec. 10(3) of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance (VII) of 1950. The powers to assign or transfer the proceedings are in no way curtailed by the Hindu Marriage Act. As a necessary corollary the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act can be tried by the Additional District Judge on proper assignment of the same under sec. 10(3) of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance (VII) of 1950.

7. It has, however, been contended that the view taken by Kan Singh J. is no longer good in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Kuldip Singh vs. State of Punjab (1). I have carefully perused the Supreme Court case and having perused it I am of the opinion that the case is distinguishable. In the Supreme Court case the appeal was directly Bled before the Additional District Judge and it was not a case of the nature which was transferred by the District Judge to the Additional District Judge. In fact it was a case of di

Click Here to Read the rest of this document