Jurisdiction for maintenance claims lies at the location of marriage, supporting spouse's right to stridhana return.

1. This is a revision arising out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff - opposite party against the applicant for recovery of amount of Rs. 8,570/- as arrears of maintenance allowance for the period commencing 1st of August, 1969 and ending 30th September, 1971, for future maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month for return of ornaments of the plaintiff - opposite party alleged to have been illegally detained by the defendant - applicant or in the alternative for an amount of Rs. 11,600/- as compensation therefor and for permanent injunction to restrain the applicant from entering into matrimony with one Km. Ushi or any other girl or woman.

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 statement 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