ARUN KUMAR BEDI Vs. ANJANA DEDI
LAWS(CAL)-1983-5-8
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on May 10,1983

ARUN KUMAR BEDI Appellant
VERSUS
ANJANA BEDI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Anil K.Sen, J. - (1.) This is a revisional application at the instance of the defendant in Money Suit No. 23 of 1979 of the 4th Court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Alipore. The order impugned is one of October 8, 1982, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge deciding preliminary issue as to the jurisdiction of the Court in favour of the plaintiff. The respondent filed the aforesaid suit in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Alipore claiming separate maintenance. Her simple case is that she was married to the petitioner at Delhi and she went over to United Kingdom to reside with her husband, the defendant, since the husband is a resident of the United Kingdom. She further pleaded that being deserted by the husband in the United Kingdom, she was compelled to come back to India and live separately at No. 15, Elgin Road, Calcutta within the jurisdiction of the learned Subordinate Judge. In such circumstances she claimed that she is entitled to separte maintenance and such maintenance not having been provided for by the husband she filed the suit. In pleading the jurisdiction of the Court where the suit had been filed she said "That the cause of action for the suit arose on or about September, 1976 and is subsisting till the filing of the suit at premises No. 15, Elgin Road, Calcutta 20 within police station Bhowanipore in the District of 26-Parganas and within the jurisdiction of this Court where the plaintiff resides and where the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff maintenance and also where the desertion of the defendant is continuing.
(2.) The defendant husband appeared to contest the suit. A written statement having been filed he raised an objection that since he is residing beyond the jurisdiction of the Court and since the cause of action for the suit arose beyond such jurisdiction the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to antertain the suit. A preliminary issue on the point of jurisdiction having been raised the learned Subordinate Judge proceeded to decide that by the order impugned. In deciding the issue in favour of the plaintiff the learned Subordinate Judge observed that as the plaintiff is at present residing at premises No. 15, Elgin Road within the jurisdiction of his Court, "the defendant is liable to pay maintenance to the plaintiff at the place where she is residing and also where the alleged desertion by the defendant is continuing." This is the order which is being impugned before us in the present revisional application.
(3.) Mr. Chatterjee, appearing in support of this revisional application, has strongly contended that even upon the pleading of the plaintiff the suit is not maintainable before the learned Subordinate Judge. According to Mr. Chatterjee, it is not so maintainable because the learned Subordinate Judge has no territorial jurisdiction as the defendant is residing outside the jurisdiction and the cause of action also arose beyond the jurisdiction. According to Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Subordinate Judge went wrong in thinking that non-payment of the maintenance is a part of the cause of action so that such non-payment at the separate residence of the wife can constitute a part of the cause of action for the suit. Reliance is placed by Mr. Chatterjee on an earlier Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Ramalinga Iyer v. Jayalakshmi, AIR 1941 Madras 695 and a recent decision of a learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sushilabai Rohani Prasad v. Rohani Prasad, (1982) 2 DMC 13. The point thus raised by Mr. Chatterjee has been seriously contested by Mr. Roy appearing on behalf of the plaintiff. Mr. Roy has relied upon provisions of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act in contending that in view of the statutory obligation imposed by Section 18 non-fulfilment thereof is a part of the cause of action which necessarily arises in a case coming under Sub-section (2) of that section at the separate residence of the wife. According to Mr. Roy, the earlier decisions can be of no help in view of the statutory provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.;


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