1 CRA 483-10 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.483 OF 2010 Vitthal alias Vithoba Rama Koli .Applicant V/s. Sou. Sushila Vitthal Koli & anr. .Respondents Mr.Vijay Killedar, Advocate, for the Applicant None for the Respondents CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 11TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. . This Civil Revision Application is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jaysingpur, District Kolhapur, rejecting the Applicant s Application Exhibit No.51 in Regular Civil Suit No.43 of 2004, whereby Applicant had objected to jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. The Applicant is husband and father of the two Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs had filed a suit for maintenance. The prayers in the plaint are to the following 2 CRA 483-10 effect. A decree for maintenance towards the preceding year amounting to Rs.36,000/- should be passed; the Defendant should be ordered to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month and the charge of the decree may be kept on the property mentioned in the schedule. Now, the properties mentioned in the schedule are agricultural lands and the residential house situated at village Daflapur, Taluka Jat, District Sangli outside the territorial jurisdiction of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jaysingpur, District Kolhapur. 2. The grievance of the Applicant that the learned Trial Judge should not have rejected the Application merely because it was filed at late stage may be correct, but the learned Counsel for the Applicant has not been able to show that as to how the Court at Jaysingpur did not have jurisdiction to try the suit. Suit is basically for a decree of maintenance amount, with the incidental relief 3 CRA 483-10 to create charge on the properties of the Defendant i. e. present Applicant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the suit is in respect of immovable properties situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jaysingpur, District Kolhapur. The learned Trial Judge, though for wrong reasons, rightly refused to entertain the objection raised by the Applicant. 3. Civil Revision Application is, therefore, rejected. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)