FAO No.744 of 1990 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on April 06,2010. Kaushalya Devi --Appellant vs. Hari Chand -- Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.H.N.Mehtani,Advocate, for the appellant Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) This appeal is directed against the order of learned Addl.District Judge, Rohtak, dated 1.9.1990, who in terms of Order VII Rule 10 (1) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'), after returning the plaint, directed the parties to appear before the Court at Sonepat, which had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Acr, 1955 (for short,'the Act'). Shorn of unnecessary details, brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, against her husband in the Civil Court at Rohtak. In the reply, it was pleaded that the Civil Court at Rohtak, had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed in which issue No.2 was as to “whether the Court at Rohtak has jurisdiction to try this petition ?. In view of the agreement between the parties, issue No.2 FAO No.744 of 1990 2 was treated as preliminary issue on which both the parties led their respective evidence. Appellant appeared as PW-1 and examined Vijay as PW-2. Besides, she produced certificates Ex.P1 and Ex.P-2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent examined Smt.Sushma Dhawan as RW-1 Headmistress of S.D.Girls Secondary School, Sonepat, Partap Singh as RW-2 from the office of District Food and Supplies Officer, Sonepat, Satish Kumar as RW-3 a partner in ration depot at Sonepat, Bharat Bhushan as RW-4, who had issued the certificate Ex.P-2 in favour of the pettioner and respondent himself appeared as RW- 5. He has also produced cash memos Mark R-1 to R-4, Ex.R-5 to R7, the home work note books etc, Ex.R-8 school leaving certificate of a child named Lucky, Ex.R-9 the ration card and Exs. R8/A, R9/A and R10 are the copies of voter list. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the Court came to a conclusion that the appellant had never resided at Rohtak, rather she was residing with the respondent/husband at Sonepat. Therefore, in terms of Order VII Rule 10 (1), of CPC, the plaint was ordered to be returned to the appellant with a direction to present it before proper Court at Sonepat and direction was given to the parties to appear there. Dissatisfied with the order, the present appeal was filed, which was admitted on 30.11.1990. Mr.H.N.Mehtani, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in November, 1959 and out of the wedlock, the parties to the lis had eight children. Fifty years have passed since the time the marriage was performed and by now, the FAO No.744 of 1990 3 appellant may be more than 70 years of age. This matter pertains to the jurisdiction of the Court as to whether the Court at Rohtak had jurisdiction to try the case or the Court at Sonepat as ordered. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to Section 19 of the Act, which reads as follows:- “Section 19. (Court to which petition shall be presented: Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the District Court within the local limits of whose ordinary orginal civil jurisdiction:- (i). The marriage was solemnized or, (ii). the respondent, at the time of the petition resides or, (iii). the parties to the marriage last resided together, or (iv). the petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where the respondent is, at the time, residing outside the territories to which this Act extends, or has not been heard of as alive for a period of seven years, or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of him, if he were alive”. The aforesaid provision provides that the Civil Court has jurisdiction where the marriage was solemnized or the respondent, at the time of petition resided. In the present case, the finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Court below that the appellant and the respondent never resided together as husband and wife at Rohtak nor their marriage was solemnized there. Rather, the evidence brought on record is a ration card Ex.R-9, which has been proved by Partap Singh RW-2, an employee of the office of District Food and Supplies, Sonepat, to show that the appellant and the respondent had been residing at Sonepat. Voter list Ex. R8/A and FAO No.744 of 1990 4 Ex.R9/A respectively show that both the appellant and respondent resided together at Sonepat. On the contrary, there is no evidence on record which could show that the appellant was residing at Rohtak even at the time of presentation of divorce petition. Thus, from the totality of circumstances, I find that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Court below. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed though without any order as to costs. April 06,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge