ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to strike down the petition in H.M.O.P.No.847 of 2018, on the file of the learned Principal Family Judge, Coimbatore.

2. The petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband. The respondent filed petition in H.M.O.P.No.847 of 2018 for declaration declaring that the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent on 04.11.2016 as null and void. The wife filed the present Civil Revision Petition to strike down the petition in H.M.O.P.No.847 of 2018.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed this petition on two grounds to strike down the petition seeking declaration of their marriage as null and void. First one is the petition is barred by limitation and the second one is the Court below has no jurisdiction to entertain the said petition. He further submitted that the petitioner and the respondent fell in love and due to their love affair, they eloped to Bangalore. Immediately the parents of the petitioner lodged complaint as against the respondent herein on 25.09.2016 on the file of the All Women Police Station, Sattur, Viruthunagar. Therefore, they got married on 04.11.2016 at Vinayakar Temple, Sattur. Thereafter, the respondent dropped the petitioner at her parents' house and went to Bangalore for his avocation.

3.1. At that juncture, the respondent filed the impugned petition under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955, for declaration declaring that the said marriage dated 04.11.2016 as null and void. When the petition filed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, it should have been filed within a period of one year from the date of alleged marriage. Even according to the respondent, the marriage was took place on 04.11.2016 and the petition was filed only on 02.06.2018. Therefore, the petition itself clearly barred by limitation and the Court below ought not to have numbered the petition.

3.2. He further submitted that insofar as the jurisdiction is concerned, Section 19 provides for jurisdiction to file petition under the Hindu Marriage Act. According to the respondent, he was compelled to tie Thali to the petitioner herein on 04.11.2016 at Vinayakar Temple, Vembakottai, Sattur, within the jurisdiction of Sattur Police Station, Virudhunagar. Thereafter, the respondent left the petitioner at her parents house and went to Bangalore. At present, the respondent is working as Business Analyst at M/s.TCS, Pune, Maharashtra. Whereas, the present impugned petition has been filed before the Principal Family Court, Coimbatore. According to the respondent he resides in the address mentioned in the petition as such, the Court below has got jurisdiction to try the petition. In accordance with the Section 19(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent ought to have filed petition within the local limits of original civil jurisdiction where the marriage was solemnized or where the respondent resides, or where the parties to the marriage last resided together or where the petitioner resides, in a case the respondent is residing outside the territories. Therefore, the Court below has no jurisdiction to try the petition and he prayed to strike down the petition.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent never fell in love with the petitioner herein. In view of arranging job to the petitioner, the respondent had taken the petitioner to Bangalore. Unfortunately, a false complaint had been foisted as the respondent and the petitioner fell in love and eloped to Bangalore. Immediately, they brought to Police Station, where the parents, relatives, and villagers were gathered and compelled the respondent to marry the petitioner herein. Therefore, the respondent was made to garland the petitioner herein with a Thali on 04.11.2016. In fact, immediately the respondent lodged complaint on 10.12.2016 to the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar. Thereafter