Karambir vs Gayatri Bai

L.N. Mittal, J.—Husband Karambir has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 06.05.2013 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned District Judge (Family Court), Bhiwani, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-1), filed by the petitioner for dismissing the divorce petition, filed by respondent wife Gayatri Bai against the petitioner u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short-the Act). The husband, in his application (Annexure P-1), has alleged that the wife is not permanent resident of Bhiwani nor she was serving temporarily at Bhiwani and in fact, both the parties are permanent residents of District Rewari, where marriage of the parties was also solemnized and consummated and the wife also used to reside with the husband in District Rewari. It was thus alleged that the Court at Bhiwani had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the divorce petition filed by the wife.

The wife, by filing reply (Annexure P-2), opposed the application moved by the husband and controverted the averments made therein. It was asserted that the wife was residing in Bhiwani City, and therefore, Court at Bhiwani had territorial jurisdiction to try the divorce petition. The wife even denied that she was permanent resident of District Rewari. It was asserted that she was residing in Bhiwani since her childhood and presently, she was serving in Bhiwani.

Learned District Judge (Family Court), vide impugned order (Annexure P-3), has dismissed the application (Annexure P-1) moved by the husband, who has, therefore, filed this revision petition to assail the said order.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the wife was not residing in Bhiwani and has now even left the temporary service at Bhiwani, and therefore, Court at Bhiwani has no territorial jurisdiction to try the divorce petition filed by the wife.

The aforesaid contention is completely unacceptable. According to Section 19(iii-a), every petition under the Act shall be presented to the District Judge within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction, in case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition.

Thus, according to the aforesaid provision, if the wife was residing at Bhiwani on the date of presentation of divorce petition, District Court at Bhiwani has territorial jurisdiction to try the divorce petition.

In the instant case, the husband, in his application (Annexure P-1), has not even remotely pleaded that the wife was not residing at Bhiwani at the time of presentation of divorce petition. On the contrary, stress in application (Annexure P-1) has been laid on the fact that the wife is not ''permanent resident'' of Bhiwani and that both the parties are ''permanent residents'' of District Rewari. However, the wife was not required to be permanent resident of District Bhiwani to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court at Bhiwani. On the contrary, if the wife was residing at Bhiwani on the date of presentation of divorce petition, then the Court at Bhiwani has territorial jurisdiction to try the divorce petition filed by the wife. In the instant case, the wife has specifically asserted even in her reply (Annexure P-2) that she is residing at Bhiwani since her childhood and she is permanent resident of Bhiwani. On the other hand, the husband in his application (Annexure P-1), has nowhere pleaded that the wife was not residing at Bhiwani when the divorce petition was filed. In view of the aforesaid, application (Annexure P-1), filed by the husband has been rightly dismissed by the Family Court. Impugned order of the Family Court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is sans any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.