Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.C.Mittal, J.
Darshan Kaur
Versus
Malook Singh
First Appeal First Order No. 11 of 1981,
Decided On : AUGUST 31, 1982
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 19, 25 - JURISDICTION - PETITION FOR PERMANENT ALIMONY - COURT HAVING JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN - COURT WHICH GRANTED DECREE OF DIVORCE OR COURT WITHIN WHOSE JURISDICTION CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 19 ARE SATISFIED.
Fact of the Case:
Wife filed a petition for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the District Court, Jullundur, where both parties resided. The husband objected to the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that only the court that granted the decree of divorce (Allahabad High Court) had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The District Court dismissed the petition, relying on precedents.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the District Court, Jullundur, had jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 25 of the Act. It interpreted Section 19 and 25 of the Act harmoniously, concluding that the jurisdiction of the court to entertain a petition under Section 25 is governed by Section 19, which specifies the courts that have jurisdiction based on various factors such as the place of solemnization of marriage, residence of the parties, and the location where the petitioner is residing at the time of filing the petition.
Issues: Whether the District Court, Jullundur, had jurisdiction to entertain the petition for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that Section 25 should be read subject to Section 19 regarding the jurisdiction of the court, unless there is a specific provision to the contrary in any particular section. It emphasized that the jurisdiction under the Act is exercised in view of Section 19, and that the jurisdiction of any other court that may have jurisdiction under Section 19 is not excluded by the fact that a decree was passed by a particular court.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District Court dismissing the petition, and held that the Jullundur Court had jurisdiction to decide the petition filed under Section 25 or 27 of the Act. The parties were directed to appear before the Additional District Judge, Jullundur, for further proceedings on the merits of the case.
1. Malook Singh obtained an ex parte decree of divorce against his wife Darshan Kaur from the Court of Additional District Judge, Allahabad on 15-11-1976. When she came to know of the decree she filed an appeal in the Allahabad High Court, which was barred by time by 366 days and was consequently dismissed as such on 1-2-1980. On 19-4-1980 Darshan Kaur filed a petition under Sec.25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the grant of permanent alimony against Malook Singh in the Court of District Judge, Jullundur, in which it was recited that the decree of divorce was passed by the Additional District Judge, Allahabad and the appellant s appeal failed before the Allahabad High Court. She pleaded that the husband had six Killas of land having value at the rate of Rs. 35,000.00 per Killa out of which on one Killa there was an orchard and tubewell was installed. The respondent had 20 Tolas of gold ornaments and was employed as Editor, Paper Lok Lahar and was drawing Rs. 800.00 per month besides getting military pension amounting to Rs. 350.00 per month. In para 5 of the petition it was pleaded that the respondent voluntarily resided and worked for gain in village Gari Baksha, District Jullundur. Claim for Rs. 500.00 per month for permanent alimony was made. The petition was contested by Malook Singh, who took up a preliminary objection that since the decree of divorce was passed by the Additional District Judge, Allahabad, only that Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition. He denied if he owned any land or had gold ornaments in his possession. He also denied that he was Editor of Lok Lahar and was getting any salary from that paper. He pleaded that he was getting Rs. 60.00 per month as pension from Air Force. In reply to para 5 he admitted that he resided in village Garhi Baksha, District Jullundur. The Court below struck the following preliminary issue.
"Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition?
The Court below relied on Seeta Ram V/s. Smt. Phooli, AIR 1972 Raj 313 and A.R. Munuswamy V/s. Hamsa Rani, AIR 1975 Mad 15, in coming to the conclusion that it is the Court which granted the decree of divorce, which alone had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 25 of the Act and thus concluded that the District Court at Jullundur had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Sec.25 of the Act. Consequently, her petition was dismissed vide order dated 18-10-1980. This is Darshan Kaur s appeal to this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to succeed. The Court below only considered Sec.25 of the Act in deciding the preliminary issue and did not give due importance to Sec.19 of the Act. Sections 19 and 25 of the Act are as under :-
"19. Court to which petition shall be presented.- Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the district court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction - (i) the marriage was solemnized, or
(ii) the respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition, resides, or
(iii) the parties to the marriage last resided together, or
(iv) the petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where the respondent is at that time, residing outside the territories to which this Act extends, or has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive."
"25. Permanent alimony and maintenance.- (1) Any Court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
