SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(Raj) 95

JOSHI
Veena Lodha – Appellant
Versus
Narendra Mal Lodha – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
N.M. Singhvi, for Petitioner; S.K. Mal Lodha, for Non-Petitioner

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.







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top