( 1 ) HEARD Sri M. K. Gupta counsel for the petitioner.

( 2 ) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 27- 8-2002 passed by the XIII Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2002 by which the application of the petitioner 13-C challenging the jurisdiction of the appellate Court has been rejected.

( 3 ) FACTS giving rise to this writ petition, briefly stated, are: the petitioner filed a petition for divorce in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad which are registered marriage petition No. 679 of 2000. In paragraph 11 of the plaint it was mentioned that the suit is tentatively valued at Rs. 1,00,000/- and Court-fees of Rs. 37. 50 for divorce and rs. 37. 50 for return of articles have been separately paid. The 3rd Additional Civil judge (Senior Division) vide its judgment dated 31-1-2002 granted decree of divorce and also directed for return of articles as mentioned in the plaint. Against the judgment and decree dated 31-1-2002 passed by the 3rd Additional Civil Judge (Senior division), Ghaziabad a Civil Appeal NO. 45 of 2002 was filed by the defendant-respondent in the Court of the District Judge, ghaziabad. In the aforesaid appeal an application 13-C was filed by the petitioner who was respondent in the appeal stating that the District Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. XIII Additional District judge heard the counsel for the parties and rejected the application of the petitioner 13-C vide its order dated 27-8-2002. Petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order dated 27-8-2002. Sri M. K. Gupta counsel for the petitioner raised the following submission in support of the writ petition:1. A petition under Section 13 of the hindu Marriage Act for divorce is not capable of giving any pecuniary valuation hence appeal against the judgment and decree of 3rd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) will lie to the High Court since it is the High court which has residuary power or hearing the appeal. Reliance has been placed on a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in 1961 all LJ 232 : (AIR 1961 All 395), Paras Ram v. Janki Bai alias Savitri. 2. The valuation of suit given by the petitioner in Marriage Petition No. 679 of 2000 of amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was Irrelevant and the said valuation cannot be determinative of the forum of appeal and such a valuation is to be ignored as a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act is incapable of valuation in the existing law.

( 4 ) I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The only question raised in the writ petition is as to whether the appeal against the judgment and decree of the 3rd Additional Civil Judge (Senior division) dated 31-1 -2002 will lie to the District Judge or to the High Court?

( 5 ) FOR considering the question raised in the writ petition it Is necessary to have a look over the statutory provision governing the right of appeal under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Section 28 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 relates to appeal from decrees and orders. Section 28 of the Act is extracted below:"28. Appeal from decrees and orders, (1) All decrees made by the Court in any proceeding under this Act shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), be appealable as decrees of the Court made in the exercise of its original civil Jurisdiction, and every such appeal shall He to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of the Court given in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. (2) Orders made by the Court in any proceeding under this Act under Section 25 or section 26 shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), be appealable, if they are, not interim orders, and every such appeal shall lie to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of the Court given In exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. (3) There shall be no appeal under this section on the subject of costs only. (4)