Manokaran vs Rajeswari

S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.—The revision petitioner is the respondent in H.M.O.P. No. 43 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sub

Court, Kumbakonam. The revision is filed against the dismissal of the petition in I.A. No. 2 of 2003 questioning the jurisdiction of the Additional

Sub Court, Kumbakonam to try the petition in H.M.O.P. No. 43 of 2002 filed by the respondent herein.

The respondent herein filed H.M.O.P. No. 43 of 2002 on 11.6.2002 against her father, the revision petitioner herein directing him to pay a

lump-sum amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the educational expenses of the respondent herein or a 2 yearly maintenance amount of Rs. 75,000/- for 4

years from June, 2002 and a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards marriage expenses of the respondent herein.

The revision petitioner resisted the said petition by filing counter on 6.8.2002 and opposing that the Sub Court, Kumbakonam has no territorial

jurisdiction to try the H.M.O.P. No. 43 of 2002, in that he is employed at Tindivanam and also residing at Tindivanam. The revision petitioner also

filed I.A. No. 2 of 2003 for the said purpose and also questioning the maintainability of the said H.M.O.P.

The trial Court considering the objections raised in the counter and finding that inasmuch as the respondent was born at Valangaiman, the said

Court has got jurisdiction to try the H.M.O.P. No. 43 of 2002 and accordingly dismissed the petition I.A. No. 2 of 2003. The order is under

challenge in this revision.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that H.M.O.P. No. 43 of 2002 has been filed u/s 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and

Maintenance Act. Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act reads:-

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section a Hindu is bound, during his or her lifetime, to maintain his or her legitimate or illegitimate children and

his or her aged or infirm parents.

(2) A legitimate or illegitimate child may claim maintenance from his or her father or mother so long as the child is a minor.

(3) The obligation of a person to maintain his or her aged or infirm parent or a daughter who is unmarried extends in so far as the parent or the

unmarried daughter, as the case may be, is unable to maintain himself or herself out of his or her own earnings or other property.

The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 does not define as to where such petition can be filed.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further pointed out referring Section 20(a) C.P.C. that H.M.O.P. as filed is not maintainable.

Section 20(a) C.P.C. reads:-

Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises - Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted

in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction -

(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily

resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain;

As per Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, the suit for enhancement of maintenance shall be instituted in a

Court which will have jurisdiction to receive a suit for maintenance at the enhanced rate claimed and one for reduction of maintenance shall be

instituted in a Court which will have jurisdiction, to receive a suit for maintenance at the rate which is sought to be reduced.

In the H.M.O.P. No. 43 of 2002, in the cause title, the address of the revision petitioner is mentioned as residing at Government Quarters,

Regional Research Centre, Tindivanam within the jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Tindivanam. The respondent, who filed the H.M.O.P. is residing at

Valangaiman within the jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Kumbakonam. H.M.O.P. No. 43 of 2002 has been filed only to direct the revision

petitioner, the father of the respondent to pay a lump-sum amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the educational expenses of the respondent herein or a 2

yearly maintenance amount of Rs. 75,000/- for 4 years from June, 2002 and a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards marriage expenses of the

respondent herein and not as regular matrimonial O.P. or claiming interim maintenance amount. Therefore, as per Section 20 of Civil Procedure

Code, the residence place of the revision petitioner is the place where relief is to be sought for by filing appropriate litigation having the territorial

jurisdiction. Regarding maintainability as rightly argued for the revision petitioner, only suit for maintenance will lie for enhancement of maintenance

in the Court which have jurisdiction. It follows that H.M.O.P. No. 43 of 2002 filed seeking the above relief itself is not maintainable inasmuch as

only suit will lie in the concerned Court having jurisdiction. Therefore, the order of the trial Court that the said Court has got territorial jurisdiction

to try H.M.O.P. No. 43 of 2002 is erroneous and is to be set aside.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No cost. The order dated 22.7.2003 made in I.A. No. 2 of 2003 by the Additional Sub

Court, Kumbakonam is set aside and H.M.O.P. No. 43 of 2002 is dismissed as filed without territorial jurisdiction and not maintainable. It is open

to the respondent to pursue her remedy in proper forum and proper Court. Consequently the connected C.M.P. No. 17384 of 2003 is closed.