THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.50 of 2024 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY The instant is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 preferred by the appellant/husband challenging the order dated 15.12.2023 in O.P.No.1378 of 2018 passed by the Principal Family Court-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, the ‘Family Court’).

2. Heard Mr. Mohammad Abdul Qaiyoum, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mohd. Abdul Basith, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Family Court has returned the O.P. filed by the appellant/husband against the respondent/wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The said O.P. was returned for want of territorial jurisdiction reserving the liberty of the husband to file it before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction.

4. The relevant facts for deciding the present appeal are that the appellant/husband had filed a petition seeking for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 26 Order 7 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. The jurisdiction disclosed in the said petition is that which is disclosed herein under:

“The petitioner is residing at H.No.9-4-97/20/1, Hakeem shah colony, Tolichowki, Golconda, Hyderabad. And the respondent before leaving to UAE resided along with the petitioner at the above address, within the limits of P.S. Golconda and Hyderabad district as such the Hon’ble court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition.”

5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the marriage of the appellant/husband with the respondent/wife took place on 18.04.2008 at Sharjah as per the Muslim rites and customs with prompt dower of Rs.2,500/- Dirham’s and one son was born from the wedlock. Both the appellant/husband and respondent/wife stayed together at Sharjah, UAE for a considerable period of time. In between occasionally they used to visit India to meet their relatives and thereafter they went back to Sharjah, UAE.

6. In between it appears that the relationship between the appellant/husband and respondent/wife got strained and the appellant/husband left Sharjah on 13.09.2017 and came to India and started residing at Hyderabad. In spite of the repeated efforts, correspondences and requests made by the appellant/husband to the respondent/wife for coming to India and staying together in India yielded no fruits. It was then that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was filed which was registered as F.C.O.P.No.1317 of 2018. The respondent/wife entered appearance and filed a detailed objection including the territorial jurisdiction and further also informed the Court below that she had moved a divorce petition in Dubai Sharia Court vide case No.1685 of 2015 where she was residing.

7. The Dubai Sharia Court at the first instance decided the case in favour of the respondent/wife vide judgment and decree dated 25.12.2017 granting irrevocable divorce and also granted alimony by way of monetary reliefs. Since there was a default on the part of the appellant/husband in making the payment of alimony awarded by the Dubai Sharia Court, an E.P. has been filed before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for recovery of an amount of Rs.42,78,758/- with costs of Rs.43,354/- vide E.P.No.955 of 2018. It is then that the present Family Court Appeal for restitution of conjugal rights has been filed by the husband.

8. Based on the said objection that the respondent/wife had taken and the issues that were framed, the impugned judgment has been passed holding the case was not maintainable in the learned Family Court at Hyderabad as it did not have the jurisdiction based on the pleadings in the F.C.O.P and which is under challenge in this appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment and decree passed by the Dubai Sharia Court was not applicable in the Indian Terr