^'l ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR gjvision Bench MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.^^^-OF 200^ ^ppellant Basant Lal Parmar, aged aboisft 33 years, S/o. Shri Dhanji Pamiar, resident of Village Kukina Motisheri, Post Kuknia, District Katchha (Bhuj) Gujrat. Versus c 5(^ t./ y R^^Mei^^ ^^r^ ^^^•^ ^ "'Q-^ ,^..r Smt. Bhavna Parmar, W/o. Shri Basant Lal Parmiar, aged about 28 years, Occupation- Teacher, C/o. Father-Shri Hemraj Rathore, Resident of Piprawari Sheri Junawas, Post Madhapur, District Kathch (Bhuj) Gujrat. \3 MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION58-0F THE IfiNBWWs^^GE ACT. 1955 --FciU4l <>• C<2UA-^ ^ ^""^^ ^ '^J^ \^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. yANu.382yf20GS APPELLANT : Basant Lai Parm-ar •RESPOMDEiMT Vers.us Smt. Bhavna Parmar APPEAL SECTION 19 OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT Divj^iuoB^n^: . Hon'ble Shri I.M. Gluddysg & Hon'ble Shri G. Mlnhajuddjn, JJ. Present: -Shn S.C. Verma, counsel for the appeilant. Shri JA, Lohanl, counsel for the respondent. OBALORDER ?th (Passed on -18l" day of August, 2011) PerI.M.Quddusi.J. Hearu on M.(C.)P. No. 470/2005, -an appiication for condonatlon of delay In filiny the appeal. jt is reported-that the appeal is barred by 06 days of Its iimltation. On due consideratlon, we are satisfied that the appellant has been abie to expialn the delay of 08 days In fiiJng tne appeal satlsfactorily. novyever.vve are of the opinion that the applicatlon shouid be allowed on' payment of cost of Rs.500/- to the respondent. Accordingjy, the appijcatlon js ajlowed and dela-y- in fi'ii'ng the appeai is hereby condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- to the respondent before the triai Court. Heard on admisslon. This has been fiied against the impugned order 28.3.2005, passed by the Fam-iiy Court, Ra-ipur (CG) In Case No.18SA/'2004, dismissing the suit filed under Section 8 ofthe Hjndu .5S?S: ^ IVSamage Acf advislng the appelEant to file the same at Kuchii, DEstrict Bhuj In Guirat. as both the parties are IJvms there and there wiEI be wastage of money, if the petition is kept pendlng and proc-eeulngs are heid at Raipur. The brief mcts of the case are that the appeilant as weli as the respondent both beiong to Hlndu religion and the marriage between thern was solemnized on 26'"" May, 19S7 at Ralpur In Chhattisgarh. Now a days, both are jivlng In the State of Gujrat. The appeiiant had filed a petltion under Sectlon 9 of the Kindu IVIamaye Act for restltutEon of conjugai riyhts before the Famiiy Couil:, Raipyr, especiaily on the ground that the respondent has deserted him on 10.4.1998 without anv cause. We have heard iearned counsel for the parties at length. Before proceeding further, It is necessary to peruse Section 19 ofthe HJndu Ivlamage Act, 1855 which i-epi-oduce as under: "18, Court to which petitjon be - Every petitlon under this Act shall be presented to the djstrict court vvitbln the local limits of whose ordinary originai civii jurisdiction- (i) the marriage was solemnized , or (II) the respondent, at the tlme of the presentation of the petitlon, resides, or (iii) the to the marrjage iast together, or [(Ijla) in the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the of presentation of the petltion, or] (iv) the petltioner is residing at the time of the presentatlon of the petition, in a where the respondent Is, at the time, residing outside the territories to whlch this Act extends, or h-as not been heard of as belng ailve for a period of seven years or more by those persons who wouid natufaijy have heard of hltn if he were alive.1" ^^.-s-^^^^g^..^,..^..^^^..^ ^ A bare perusai of the above quoted Section shovvs that It is sweet wiil of the party to fiie any appSicatlon under the Hindu ivlamage Act at any ofthe piace, mentioned above. Therefore, ifthe appelEant had c-hosen to file the petitlon under Section S ofthe Hindu iVlarriage Act at a piace, where the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was soEemnized, it cannot be said that the Court withln whose joca! iimits the marrlage was solemnjzed, has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as -weEI as the petition cannot be thrown away at the outset on the ground that the partles are iivlng at a different place from the place, where the petition has been filed. in vle'w of the above, t?ie irnpugned order, vvhereby the petition under Sectlon 9 of the Hirsdu Ivlarriage Act flled by the appellant has been dismissed with an advise to the appejlant'to file the same at Kuchh, District Bhuj in Gujrat, is not sustajnable in the eye of law and is IlabEe to be set aside. Accordingly, the Is allowed. The impugned order Is set and the matter Is remitted to the Famliy Coun: with a direcSion that the petition flled by the appeilant under Section S of the Hlndu IVEarriaye Act, shali be restored to its ouginai number and shail be deait with in accordance with law. The parties shaii appear before the Famiiy Court concerned on-i 2th October, 2011. We make it ciear that we have not consldered the question of grant of expenses of iltigation etc. to the respondent herein, in this appeal. Parties are free to move sultabie appEication before the Famiiy Court concemed. Sd/- I G. Minhajuddiu I.M.Quddusi ; Judge Judge |