1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6792 OF 2009 Shankarlal s/o. Aatmaram Govindani and another .. Petitioner/s Versus Sau. Kavitha w/o. Shankarlal Govindani and others. ..Respondent/s --- Mr. R.J. Katariya, Advocate for the applicants, Mr. V.M. Maney, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI ,J. DATE : 9th December, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28th July, 2009, vide which the learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalgaon, has rejected the preliminary objection raised by the present petitioners that the court at Jalgaon has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 2] The respondent NO.1, who is the wife of the petitioner No.1, and the respondent NO.2 who is the daughter of the petitioner No.1 have filed a suit for maintenance under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. In the said suit, a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction came to be raised by the present petitioners on the ground that 2 since the petitioners are residents of Ahmedabad, the court at Jalgaon does not have jurisdiction and it is only the court at Ahmedabad which will have jurisdiction. The same is rejected. Hence, the present petition. 3] Shri Katariya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act does not deal with jurisdiction, the issue of jurisdiction will be determined by Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He, therefore, submits that it is not the residence of the plaintiff that will determine the jurisdiction but it is the residence of the defendant that will determine the jurisdiction. 4] The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the matter of “ Arun Kumar Bedi Vs. Smt. Anjana Bedi” reported in AIR 1984 Cal. 49. He also relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court, in the case of “Pankaj Suryakant Lohar Vs. Mayuri Pankaj Lohar” reported in 2002(4) Mh.L.J. 828. 5] Shri Pramod Gaikwad, Advocate holding for Shri Talhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, submits that the Division Bench of this court in the matter of “ Mrs. Sucheta Dilip Ghate Vs. Dilip Shantaram Ghate and others” reported in 2002(3) MLR 238, has held that the proceedings for maintenance can be filed where the wife resides. 6] Shri Mane, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, supports the case of the petitioners. 3 7] No doubt, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court is well placed. However, in so far as the judgment of the Calcutta High Court is concerned, the same would only have a persuasive value and would not have a binding effect. So also, the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge of this court would also have a persuasive value and would not have a binding force. On the contrary, the judgment of the Division Bench of this court would have a binding force in so far as the Single Judge of this court is concerned. The Division Bench in unequivocal terms has held that the court situated at the place of residence of the wife would have jurisdiction to entertain the petition under the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. In view of the clear pronouncement of law by the Division Bench of this court, I do not find that any error has been committed by the learned trial court, in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners. Hence, no case is made out for interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/-