Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
V. R. Newaskar and P. K. Tare, JJ.
LAXMANSINGH CHANDRASINGH - Appellant
Versus
KESHARBAI LAXMANSINGH - Respondents
Misc. First Appeal 144 Of 1961
Decided On : 01/30/1963
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 3(B), 7(2), 9, 19, 21 - JURISDICTION OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE - VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE - RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, alleging that the respondent was his married wife and that she had left his house without any reasonable cause. The respondent denied the marriage and alleged that she feared physical injury at the hands of the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court held that the respondent was the appellant's keep and that no marriage according to the caste custom was performed. The court dismissed the appellant's petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the Additional District Judge had jurisdiction to try the petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? 2. Whether the respondent was the married wife of the appellant? 3. Whether the appellant was entitled to restitution of conjugal rights?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Additional District Judge had jurisdiction to try the petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as the District Judge had empowered him to do so by a general order dated 1st January 1960. 2. The court held that the respondent was not the married wife of the appellant, as there was no evidence of a valid marriage according to the caste custom or any statutory provision. 3. The court held that the appellant was not entitled to restitution of conjugal rights, as he was not married to the respondent.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's decree.
( 2 ) THE appellant had presented his petition in the Court of the District Judge who, however, transferred the case for trial to the Court of the First Additional District judge, Indore, in pursuance of a distribution memo dated 1st January 1960. The appellant sought restitution of conjugal rights on the allegation that the respondent had been married to him on 18th June 1941 and that she had left her husband's house some time in the year 1959 without any reasonable cause. It was also alleged that there were five issues born to the parties after the marriage.
( 3 ) THE respondent denied that she was the married wife of the appellant. She also alleged that she feared physical injury at the hands of the appellant. She further alleged that the appellant's married wife lives with him in his own house.
( 4 ) THE trial Judge held that the respondent had been the petitioner's keep and that at no time a marriage according to the caste custom was performed. In that view the petitioner was held disentitled to claim restitution of conjugal rights. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to try a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It was pointed out that as per Section 3 (b) of the Act, 'district Court' means in any area for 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. It was further pointed out that the present petition had been filed on 25th July 1960 while the state Government had issued a notification No. 36802-11386-XXI. B dated, 7th december 1960 published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette, dated 23rd December 1960, part 1, page 1936 under Section 3 (b) of the Act empowering all the Courts of Additional District Judges to try cases under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It was suggested that as such the subsequent authorization by the State government could not empower the First Additional District Judge, Indore, to try cases retrospectively.
( 6 ) SO far as empowering by the State Government under Section 3 (b) of the Act is concerned, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not without substance. It is true that the notification has not the effect of empowering the additional District judges to try cases retrospectively. However, that is not the end of the matter.
( 7 ) SECTION 19 of the Act requires that every petition under this Act shall be presented to the district court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction the marriage was solemnized or the husband and the wife reside or last resided together. Further on, Section 21 of the Act provides that subject to the other provisions contained in this Act and to such rules as the High Court may make in this behalf, all proceedings under this Act shall be regulated, as far as may be, by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. By virtue of Section 3 (b) of the hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the State Government may have been authorized to empower the courts of the Additional District Judges to try cases under the Act. But by virtue of the fact that the Court trying a case under the Hindu Marriage Act is a civil Court to which the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable except to the extent as are modified by the specific provisions of the Act, we hare to take into consideration the provisions of the Madh. Pradesh Civil Courts Act. 1958, Section 3 of the said Act classified
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
