KALURAM Vs. MANGILAL
LAWS(MPH)-1955-2-11
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on February 24,1955

KALURAM Appellant
VERSUS
MANGILAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Dixit, J. - (1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights filed by Mangilal against his wife Ramubai. The Plaintiff impleaded Ramubai's father Mansaram, brother Kaluram and other persons as Defendants alleging that they were preventing Ramubai from allowingher to live with him. The suit was instituted in the Court of Civil Judge First Class, Shujalpur where the husband resided. The Defendants -Appellants Kaluram and Umrao resided and carried on business in Nansinghgarh outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Judge, First Class, Shujalpur. He took the objections that the Court at Shujalpur had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as against him. This objection was overruled, and after trial a decree of restitution of conjugal rights was passed against Ramubai and the other Defendants were rest from interfering with the right to require Ramubai to live with him. All the Defendants then appealed to the of Additional District Judge, Shujalpur. The was rejected by the learned District Judge. and Urnrao have now filed this second appeal.
(2.) THE only contention advanced by Mr. Kak learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the Civil Judge at Shujalpur had no jurisdiction to entertain, a the suit as against the Appellant, who resided and a carried on business beyond the jurisdiction of that Court. It was argued that die Plaintiff's suit as against the Appellant was not a suit for restitution of the' conjugal rights but was one for an injunction restraining him from preventing Ramubai returning to the Plaintiff and that being so, the suit against him could not be filed at the place of the husband's residence, when the Appellant resided and carried on business outside the jurisdiction of the Court. Learned Counsel for the Appellant placed reliance on - Venugopal Naidu v. Laxmi Ammal : AIR 1936 Mad 288 (A). This contention is, in my opinion, well -founded and must be given effect to. I think it is obvious that in a suit by a husband against the wife fox the restitution of conjugal rights if other persons are impleaded as Defendants on the allegation that they were preventing die wife from living with die husband, the cause of action against them consists in the obstruction put by them in the way of the performance of the marriage obligations by die wife and the relief that can be given to the husband against diem is a relief of an injunction prohibiting them from preventing the wife from fulfilling her marital obligations. The suit against such a Defendant can be instituted only where ho resides and carries on business or where the obstruction is caused by him. The point does not seem to be covered by any direct authority. 'The decision of the Madras High Court cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellant does not deal with this question. That was a case where the husband sued his wife for restitution of conjugal rights and impleaded her father on the ground that she was living in his house and he was instigating her not to go to her husband, and the question arose whether the Court where the husband lived had jurisdiction to try the suit. Butler, J. Before whom the matter first came up for hearing in second appeal, - Lakshmi Ammal v. Venugopala Naidu, AIR 1934 Mad 407 (B), held that the father was not a necessary or a proper party to the suit and the suit must be dismissed as against him. On the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit as against the wife, he held that the Court where die husband lived had no jurisdiction to try the suit because the wife did not reside within jurisdiction of that Court and as the parties never lived together within the jurisdiction, of the Court, the cause of action alone also did not arise within jurisdiction. A Letters Patent appeal was then filed and the judgment that appeal is reported in ' : AIR 1936 Mad 288 (A). The learned Judges who heard the Letters Patent appeal disagreeing with Butler J., held that the Court where the husband lived had jurisdiction to try the suit and it makes no difference whether the wife did or did not previously live with her husband within the jurisdiction. The learned Judges, however, expressed the agreement with the view of Butler J., that the suit was not maintainable against the father. This observation only upheld the view of Butler J., that the father was not a necessary or a proper party to the suit and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable as against him. As in 'AIR 1934 Mad 407 (B)', the suit against the father was dismissed not on the ground of jurisdiction but on the ground of his not being a proper or necessary party, the observation in : AIR 1936 Mad 288 (A), cannot be read as deciding the question of, jurisdiction in relation to the father. There is, however, nothing in these decisions which runs counter to the view I have expressed above. For the above reasons this appeal is allowed and the Plaintiff's suit as against the Appellants Kaluram and Umrao is dismissed. The Appellants shall have their costs in all the Courts from the Plaintiff Mangilal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.