A Munsif Court does not have jurisdiction to try a suit for restitution of conjugal rights between Hindus.

( 1 ) THIS is a wifes second appeal against a decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by the alleged husband. The plaintiff respondent Sudarsan Singh fied a suit against the appellant Raj mati for restitution of conjugal rights. He made the father of the girl a co-defendant. His case was that he had been married to Rajmati but that, before the gauna ceremony could be performed, the father of the girl began to think of re-marrying her to some one else. The plaintiff was, therefore, compelled to file the suit for the enforcement of his conjugal rights. The appellant Rajmati contested the suit and denied that she had ever been married to the plaintiff. After hearing the evidence of the parties learned Munsif observed that some of the allegations of the plaintiff were false, and there were contradictions in his evidence but he believed his story and held that the plaintiff was the husband of the appellant. He, therefore, decreed the suit for the restitution of conjugal rights and issued a permanent injunction restraining the father from remarrying Rajmati to any other person. Oh appeal the learned Civil judge, Gorakhpur confirmed the finding that the plaintiff Sudarsan Singh had been married to smt. Rajmati and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by this decision both Rajmati and her father birkam Singh have come to this Court in second appeal.

( 2 ) IN my opinion the appeal must be allowed and plaintiff-respondents suit for restitution of conjugal rights dismissed on the simple ground that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to try it. The suit was filed on 3-3-1956,. e. , after the Hindu Marriage Act No. XXV of 1955 had come into effect. Sec, 9 of that Act confers the right on either the husband or the wife to apply for restitution of conjugal rights to the District Court. Section 19 enjoins that every petition under the Act (including, of course, the petition for restitution of conjugal rights) must be presented to the District Court within the local limits of his ordinary original civil jurisdiction where the marriage was solemnised or the husband and wife reside or last resided together. The words district Court have been defined in Section 3 as meaning,

"in any area in which there is a city civil court, that court, and in any other area the principal civil court of original jurisdiction and includes any other civil court which may be specified by the State Government by notification in the official gazette, as having jurisdiction in, respect of the matters dealt with in this Act".

There has been no notification in the official gazette investing the Munsif Gorakhpur with the powers to hear and decide petitions under the Hindu Marriage Act. In notification No. 2207/vii published in the U, P. Gazette dated 20-10-1956, the list of courts throughout Uttar Pradesh was published as having jurisdiction as "district Court" within the meaning of Section 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act but the court of Munsif, Gorakhpur or of any munsif is not included in this list. That court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to try the suit. This matter is also concluded by the decision in Smt. Balwanti Kunwar v. Addl. Munsif, Dehra Dun, 1958 All LJ 556 : (AIR 1959 All 7), It was held by Oak J. , that a Munsif has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for restitution of conjugal rights where the parties are Hindus.

( 3 ) THE Hindu Marriage Act Was intended by die legislature to be a complete Code as regards matters dealt with by it. This is clear from Section 4 of the Act which provides (a) that any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in the Act; and (b) that any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect in so far as it is inconsistent with any provision of the Act. The combined effect of Sections 9 and 19, read with Section 4, is that the district Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to decide