MFA No.103259/2017 is an appeal by the petitioner

in M.C.No.48/2012. The petitioner is the wife of respondent in

the said petition.

2.

The petition filed by the petitioner-wife seeking

restitution of conjugal rights is dismissed on the ground that

the Senior Civil Judge at Bailhongal has no territorial

jurisdiction to try the case. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-wife

is in appeal.

3.

MFA No.102443/2014 is filed by the petitioner-

husband in M.C.No.185/2012 on the file of Family Court at

Belagavi. The petition filed by the husband seeking dissolution

of marriage is dismissed on the premise of allegation of cruelty

and desertion levelled against the wife is not established. Being

aggrieved, the husband is in appeal seeking dissolution of

marriage.

- 4 -

4.

There is no dispute relating to the status of the

present appellant and the respondent and the date of

marriage. In the petition filed by the wife seeking restitution of

conjugal rights in M.C.No.48/2012, the respondent raised

objection relating to the territorial jurisdiction of the Senior Civil

Court at Bailhongal to try the petition. While passing the orders

on IA II, the Court held that it has got jurisdiction to try the

case and consequently the trial Court dismissed IA II.

Thereafter, the parties have led evidence and the Court without

noticing the earlier order relating to the maintainability of the

petition, dismissed the petition on the ground that the Court

has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The order

dated 21.04.2014 passed on IA II held that it has got territorial

jurisdiction to try the petition is not noticed by the trial Court at

Bailhongal while dismissing the petition in terms of the

impugned judgment and decree dated 22.08.2017.

5.

The jurisdiction of the Court to entertain petition

relating to the matrimonial dispute is governed under Section

19 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 19(iii-a) provides that in

case the wife is the petitioner, then the place where the

- 5 -

petitioner is residing as on the date of presentation of the

petition, would also get the jurisdiction to try the petition. The

Court while passing orders on IA II in terms of the order dated

21.04.2014 has concluded that the petitioner was residing at

Bailhongal, when the petition was presented. Under these

circumferences, the Court at Bailhongal has got jurisdiction.

Moreover the said order has attained finality. That being the

position, the parties led evidence before the Court at Bailhongal

and after hearing the matter on merit, the Court in terms of the

impugned judgment and decree held that it has no territorial

jurisdiction. This order is erroneous and impermissible on two

reasons:

a. On earlier occasion, while passing order on IA II

Court held that it has got jurisdiction;

b. Under Section 19(iii-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act,

the Court had the jurisdiction, as petitioner was

residing in Bailhongal when petition was presented.

6.

For the aforesaid two reasons, it was not open to

the Court to take a view that it has no jurisdiction. Since the

parties have led evidence before the trial Court and there is no

adjudication of the claim of the petitioner-wife relating to

restitution of conjugal rights, this Court deems it appropriate to

set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the

- 6 -

trial Court and remit the matter back to the trial Court for fresh

consideration in accordance with law.

7.

As noticed above, the husband has also filed

petition seeking dissolution of marriage in M.C.185/2012 on the

file of Family Court, Belagavi. The said petition was contested

by the wife. The trial Court found that the petitioner has not

proved the allegation of cruelty and desertion and consequently

dismissed the petition.

8.

This Court has already taken a view to remand the

matter relating to petition filed by the wife seeking restitution

of conjugal rights. This Court is of the view that the petition

filed by the husband seeking dissolution of marriage and

petiti