Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. G. Oak, J.
SMT.BALWANT KUNWAR - Appellant
Versus
ADDL.MUNSIFF, DEHRA DUN - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 1120 Of 1956
Decided On : 04/30/1958
RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS - JURISDICTION OF MUNSIF - HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTIONS 9, 19, 29(3) - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - SECTION 9 - INDIAN DIVORCE ACT, 1869 - SECTIONS 4, 32 - WHETHER MUNSIF HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A SUIT FOR RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS WHERE THE PARTIES ARE HINDUS.
Fact of the Case:
A suit for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by a Hindu husband against his wife and her brother and mother in the Court of Munsif, Dehra Dun. The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the Munsif to entertain the suit, contending that in view of the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the suit was not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for restitution of conjugal rights where the parties were Hindus, as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provided an exclusive remedy for such disputes through petitions filed before the District Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the Munsif had jurisdiction to entertain a suit for restitution of conjugal rights where the parties were Hindus after the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? 2. Whether the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, impliedly took away the jurisdiction of Munsifs to try claims for restitution of conjugal rights?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was intended to codify and amend the law relating to marriage among Hindus, and it provided a comprehensive framework for dealing with matters such as restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation, nullity of marriage, and divorce. 2. Section 9 of the Act specifically provided for the filing of petitions for restitution of conjugal rights in the District Court, and Section 19 emphasized that such petitions should be presented to the District Court. 3. The scheme of the Act suggested that Parliament intended to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the District Court to deal with these matters, as evidenced by the absence of any provision expressly granting jurisdiction to Munsifs. 4. The court noted that the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, which dealt with similar matters, also conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the District Court and the High Court, further supporting the interpretation that Munsifs did not have jurisdiction in such cases.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the proceedings in the suit pending before the Munsif were quashed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by a Hindu husband against his wife and her relatives was initially tried in a Munsif’s court. The court examined whether the Munsif had jurisdiction to entertain such a suit after the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (!) (!) .
The court held that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provides an exclusive remedy for disputes related to restitution of conjugal rights, and such petitions are to be filed in the District Court, not in a Munsif’s court. The Act’s scheme indicates that Parliament intended to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the District Court for these matters, and no express provision grants jurisdiction to Munsifs (!) (!) .
The Act aims to comprehensively codify and amend Hindu marriage law, and its provisions, especially Sections 9 and 19, emphasize that petitions for restitution of conjugal rights should be presented to the District Court. This implies that the jurisdiction of Munsifs to try such claims has been impliedly taken away (!) (!) .
The provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are designed to deal exhaustively with matrimonial matters like restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation, nullity of marriage, and divorce, and the scheme suggests that these serious issues are to be handled exclusively by the District Court (!) (!) .
The suit included two reliefs: (a) a decree for the wife to live with the husband and allow him to exercise his conjugal rights, and (b) an injunction to prevent the wife’s relatives from obstructing her return. The court found that the first relief, being a claim for restitution of conjugal rights, fell within the jurisdiction of the District Court under the Act, and the Munsif had no jurisdiction to grant it (!) (!) .
The second relief, an injunction against the wife’s relatives, was deemed incidental to the primary relief and also fell outside the jurisdiction of the Munsif, as the scheme of the Act indicates that such matters are to be dealt with by the District Court (!) .
Since the Munsif lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit and grant the reliefs sought, the appropriate remedy was to issue a writ of prohibition, and the proceedings in the Munsif’s court were quashed. Parties were directed to bear their own costs (!) .
Please let me know if you need further clarification or assistance.
( 1 ) THE question raised in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is whether, in view of the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, or the 1955 Act), a Munsif has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for restitution of conjugal rights where the parties are Hindus.
( 2 ) RANJIT Singh filed suit No, 306 of 1955 in the Court of Munsif, Dehra Dun against Smt. Bal-want Kunwar, Bakshish Singh and Inder Kunwar. Defendant No. 1 is plaintiffs wife. Defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3 are her brother and mother respectively. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiff are : (a) a decree against the defendant No. 1 directing her to live with the plaintiff and to allow him a free exercise of his conjugal rights: (b) an injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 from preventing the defendant No. 1 from coming to the plaintiffs house.
( 3 ) VARIOUS pleas were raised in defence. One of the pleas was that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Munsif took up issue No. 1 as a preliminary issue on a question of law. On 18-4-1956 he passed an order deciding the issue in plaintiffs favour. The learned munsif held that he had jurisdiction to try a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The defendants are not satisfied with this decision dated 18-4-1956. They maintain that in view of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the suit is not maintainable. Hence the present application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
( 4 ) IT appears that the parties are Sikhs. According to Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act, the Act applies to Sikhs also. So the present par-hies are governed by the Hindu marriage Act, 1955.
( 5 ) SECTION 9 of the Act deals with restitution of conjugal rights. Section 9 states" ( 1) When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly. (2) Nothing shall be pleaded in answer to a petition for restitution of conjugal rights which Khali not be a ground for judicial separation or for nullity of marriage or for divorce". The petitioners contention is that the plaintiffs only remedy was to file a petition under Section 9 of the Act, and a suit was not maintainable in "the Munsifs Court.
( 6 ) SECTION 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the general jurisdiction of Civil Courts. Section 9, Civil Procedure Code states: "the Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred". Before 1955 Munsifs had jurisdiction to try suits for restitution of conjugal rights. The question for consideration is whether that jurisdiction has been expressly or by implication taken away , by the 1955 Act.
( 7 ) IN Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee Amritsar v. Shiv Ratan Dev Singh, (S) AIR 1955 SC 576 (A), their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down that, the exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of a suit which is normally within its competence can be brought about only by clear and unambiguous language or by the necessary implication thereof.
( 8 ) IN the commentary on the Code of Civil Procedure by Chitaley and Rao, 6th edition, the learned authors observe on pages 212 and 213 as follows:
"the mere fact that the enactment provides another remedy or a summary remedy will not constitute a bar to a suit in a Civil Court. Nor will the jurisdiction of a Civil Court be ousted unless the entire suit, as brought, is barred. The mere fact that a portion of the claim is excluded from the jurisdiction of Civil Cour
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
