CIVIL REVISION NO.6430 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 24, 2008 Smt.Simmi .....Petitioner VERSUS Sanjay Aggarwal ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. A. K. Kansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S. K. Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Application filed by the petitioner for return of the divorce petition filed by her husband at Jind stands declined. The said order is impugned in the present revision petition. Respondent Sanjay Aggarwal filed a divorce petition against his wife-petitioner before the court of Additional District Judge, Jind, on the ground that Court at Jind would lack jurisdiction to entertain the divorce petition as the marriage took place at Delhi and parties had also last resided at Delhi. By referring to the provisions of Section 19, it is urged that District Court at Jind would CIVIL REVISION NO.6430 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition filed by respondent-husband. The respondent-husband opposed the prayer so made and pointed out that the marriage was consummated at Jind and he was also permanent resident of the said place. In support of his submission, the respondent also relied on the ration card, which contained his as well as petitioner's address of Jind. The respondent- husband would also point out that in an application filed under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner herself had admitted that she had resided at Jind after marriage, where she also gave birth to two children. The counsel for the petitioner, however, would highlight the fact that the children were admitted to school at Delhi where the respondent-husband had shifted his business. This ofcourse is answered by the husband by saying that this was only a temporary shift whereas they continued to be permanent resident of Jind. The Matrimonial Court gave opportunity to the parties to prove their respective stand after framing issues. Initial burden was put on the respondent-husband to prove the issue as he had filed this petition at Jind. After taking notice of the evidence and material produced before it, the Court came to conclude that the Court at Jind would also have a territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter and accordingly rejected the application for return of the plaint. This is now impugned in the petition. As per Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the petition can be filed within local limits of a Court where marriage was solemnized or at a place where respondent is residing or at a place CIVIL REVISION NO.6430 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: where the parties to marriage last resided together. In addition, the petition can also be presented at a place where the petitioner is residing at the time of presenting the petition. The Court had rightly put the initial burden on the petitioner-husband and after making reference to various documents and the law cited before the Court, the application is decided. The petitioner-wife had made reference to some of the judgments to seek interpretation of the words “last resided together”. In this regard, reference is made to Dr.Ashok Ranjan Saxena Vs. Smt.Vishwa Bharti, AIR 1978 Allahabad 18 and T.Sareetha Vs. T.Venkata Subbaiah, AIR 1983 Andhra Pardesh 356. While interpreting the word `resided' reliance has been placed on the case of Sareetha (supra), to say that it would mean to dwell permanently or for a length of time. A temporary place of residence or a casual place of stay thus would be excluded from the definition of word `resided' or `residence'. It has accordingly been viewed that the parties had resided at Jind for sufficiently long period and, thus, the Courts at Jind would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the divorce petition. Another fact of significance, which was viewed by the Court is the rejection of prayer made by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for transfer of this petition to Delhi. This fact has been disclosed by the respondent-husband through an application filed in response to the present revision petition filed before this Court. This fact had been otherwise withheld by the petitioner. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that application filed by the petitioner questioning the territorial jurisdiction of the Court may be decided on its merit, but still it held that the court CIVIL REVISION NO.6430 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: was not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction on account of the conduct of the petitioner particularly as was reflected in ground (d). In this ground, the petitioner had made allegation about the Court at Jind being under the influence of some political figures. That apart, it can not be said that the Court at Jind would not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition for divorce. It would have been a different matter if the petitioner had made a prayer for transfer of this petition to Delhi, she being resident of Delhi. That prayer stands declined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any material irregularity or infirmity in the order, which would call for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. The revision is accordingly dismissed. April 24,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE