Back
Allahbad High Court
YASHODANANDAN
Subhash Chandra Jain - Appellant
Versus
Vidyut Jain - Respondent
Decided On : 08/19/1977
JURISDICTION - MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE - HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 20(C) - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - SECTION 19 - SUIT FOR MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE AND RETURN OF ORNAMENTS - JURISDICTION OF COURT - CAUSE OF ACTION - STRIDHANA PROPERTY.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-wife filed a suit against the defendant-husband for recovery of arrears of maintenance allowance, future maintenance allowance, return of ornaments, and a permanent injunction restraining the husband from entering into a second marriage. The husband challenged the jurisdiction of the court at Etah to entertain the suit, arguing that the cause of action for the claim of ornaments arose in Calcutta, where the ornaments were allegedly detained.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit for maintenance allowance and permanent injunction was maintainable at Etah, where the marriage was performed, as part of the cause of action arose there. However, the court held that the suit for return of ornaments or compensation for their price was also maintainable at Etah, as the ornaments constituted stridhana property, which the husband had no right to retain against the wife's will. The court found that the fact that the ornaments were received as gifts by the wife at the time of her marriage constituted part of the cause of action for the claim for their return.
Issues: 1. Whether the court at Etah had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for maintenance allowance and permanent injunction. 2. Whether the court at Etah had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for return of ornaments or compensation for their price.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the decision in Smt. Chandrawati v. Suraj Narain (AIR 1955 All 387), which held that a suit for maintenance allowance and permanent injunction restraining the husband from entering into a second marriage during the subsistence of the marriage with the plaintiff is maintainable at the place where the parties entered into marriage. 2. The court held that Section 19 of the Civil Procedure Code, which deals with suits for compensation for wrong done to movable property, was not applicable to the case, as the ornaments were not damaged but were allegedly detained by the husband. 3. The court held that Section 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, which provides that a suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises, was applicable to the case, as the ornaments constituted stridhana property, which the wife had acquired during her marriage at Etah.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the husband, holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for maintenance allowance, permanent injunction, and return of ornaments.
2. The suit was instituted by the opposite party on the allegations that she was married to the applicant according to Jain Dharmashastra on the 8th of June, 1969 at her parents residence at Etah. It was alleged that while the applicant was employed and lived at Delhi his parents resided at Calcutta. According to the opposite party after her marriage, she went to Agra with the applicant where he resided at the relevant time and stayed there for few days and thereafter returned to Etah. After stay for about 3 days at Etah, it is alleged, that the opposite party went to Calcutta because the applicant and the members of his family were leaving for Calcutta after the marriage. According to the plaint case, the opposite party after stay for about one month at Calcutta at the residence of the parents of the applicant returned back to Etah and has since then been residing there. It is alleged that in spite of efforts being made by the parents of the opposite party, the applicant did not take her back with him and did not even support her in any fashion. The plaintiff claimed that the conduct of the applicant amounted to desertion of the opposite party and consequently she was entitled to a decree for maintenance allowance. The plaint discloses that when the efforts of the opposite party to persuade the applicant to take her back as his wedded wife and keep her with him proved futile, she herself went to Delhi in June, 1971 but the applicant refused to keep her with him and informed her that he was intending to marry one Km. Ushi. It is asserted in the plaint that in view of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the opposite party was entitled to the benefits of a monogamous marriage and the applicant could not marry a second time as long as the opposite party continued to remain the wife of the applicant, According to the plaintiff-opposite party, when she returned back from Calcutta to Etah, the applicant had detained with him her ornaments and valuable clothes which formed her Stridhana property having been gifted to her by the plaintiff s father and by the applicant at the time of the marriage ceremony.
3. A written statment was filed by the applicant and the correctness of the material allegations contained in the plaint were disputed. As a result of the pleadings of the parties, a number of issues were framed by the trial court, one of them being as to whether the court at Etah had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as framed. The issue with regard to the jurisdiction was tried as a preliminary issue and the court below held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Aggrieved by the decision on the preliminary issue, the applicant has filed this revision under S. 115 of the Civil P. C.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has rightly and frankly conceded that as far as the reliefs for the grant of a decree of maintenance allowance and for a permanent injunction to restrain the applicant from entering into a second marriage during the subsistence of the marriage between the applicant and the opposite party are concerned, the suit was maintainable at Etah. The view taken by the court below that the claim for maintenance is maintainable at Etah where the marriage between the applicant and the opposite party was performed is fully supported by a d
AI
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
