- (1.) THIS is a revision arising out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff-opposite party against the applicant for recovery of amount of Rs. 8,570/- as arrears of maintenance allowance for the period commencing 1st of August, 1969 and ending 30th September, 1971, for future maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month for return of ornaments of the plaintiff-opposite party alleged to have been illegally detained by the defendant-applicant or in the alternative for an amount of Rs. 11,600/- as compensation therefor and for permanent injunction to restrain the applicant from entering into matrimony with one Km. Ushi or any other girl or woman.
(2.) THE suit was instituted by the opposite party on the allegations that she was married to the applicant according to Jain Dharmashastra on the 8th of June, 1969 at her parents' residence at Etah. It was alleged that while the applicant was employed and lived at Delhi his parents resided at Calcutta. According to the opposite party after her marriage, she went to Agra with the applicant where he resided at the relevant time and stayed there for few days and thereafter returned to Etah. After stay for about 3 days at Etah, it is alleged, that the opposite party went to Calcutta because the applicant and the members of his family were leaving for Calcutta after the marriage. According to the plaint case, the opposite party after stay for about one month at Calcutta at the residence of the parents of the applicant returned back to Etah and has since then been residing there. It is alleged that in spite of efforts being made by the parents of the opposite party, the applicant did not take her back with him and did not even support her in any fashion. THE plaintiff claimed that the conduct of the applicant amounted to desertion of the opposite party and consequently she was entitled to a decree for maintenance allowance. THE plaint discloses that when the efforts of the opposite party to persuade the applicant to take her back as his wedded wife and keep her with him proved futile, she herself went to Delhi in June, 1971 but the applicant refused to keep her with him and informed her that he was intending to marry one Km. Ushi. It is asserted in the plaint that in view of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the opposite party was entitled to the benefits of a monogamous marriage and the applicant could not marry a second time as long as the opposite party continued to remain the wife of the applicant, According to the plaintiff-opposite party, when she returned back from Calcutta to Etah, the applicant had detained with him her ornaments and valuable clothes which formed her Stridhana property having been gifted to her by the plaintiff' s father and by the applicant at the time of the marriage ceremony. A written statment was filed by the applicant and the correctness of the material allegations contained in the plaint were disputed. As a result of the pleadings of the parties, a number of issues were framed by the trial court, one of them being as to whether the court at Etah had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as framed. The issue with regard to the jurisdiction was tried as a preliminary issue and the court below held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Aggrieved by the decision on the preliminary issue, the applicant has filed this revision under S. 115 of the Civil P. C. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has rightly and frankly conceded that as far as the reliefs for the grant of a decree of maintenance allowance and for a permanent injunction to restrain the applicant from entering into a second marriage during the subsistence of the marriage between the applicant and the opposite party are concerned, the suit was maintainable at Etah. The view taken by the court below that the claim for maintenance is maintainable at Etah where the marriage between the applicant and the opposite party was performed is fully supported by a decision of this Court in Smt. Chandrawati v. Suraj Narain (AIR 1955 All 387). The material facts giving rise to the abovementioned decision were that the appellant before this Court Smt. Chandrawati and respondent Lala Suraj Narain were married at Morada bad. After the appellant had lived with her husband for ten years, he turned her out from his home. By the time this happened, the husband had shifted to Delhi and had started residing there. Smt. Chandrawati ultimately filed a suit at Moradabad claiming arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per mensem and for return of certain ornaments valued at Rs. 10,000/- and for future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/-per mensem. In the written statement filed by the defendant-respondent, a plea was taken that as he was living at Delhi and the plaintiff had alleged that he had turned her out a second time when she went to Delhi to live with him, the cause of action must be deemed to have arisen in Delhi and the Moradabad court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. The trial court held in favour of the defendant and directed the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court. A First Appeal from Order was consequently preferred by the plaintiff in this Court. The Bench consisting of Malik, C. J. and V. Bhargava, J. which decided the appeal, observed (at p. 388) : " At the time of the marriage the husband undertakes the liability to maintain the wife and this liability continues so long as the wife does not disqualify herself from her right to maintenance either by reason of her misconduct or by reason of her refusing to perform her marital duties. It cannot be said that the wife is entitled to be maintained only when she is living with her husband at his place of residence even if through no fault of hers she has to live separately. In the case, before us, the liability of the husband to maintain the wife being there, it having arisen by reason of the marriage having been performed at Moradabad, within the jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge of Moradabad, a part of the cause of action must be deemed to have arisen there. Under S. 20 Civil P. C., therefore, the plaintiff could bring her suit within the jurisdiction of the Moradabad Court."
(3.) THOUGH there is no discussion on the subject, this Court in the above decision held that a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and for return of ornaments at the instance of the wife was maintainable at the place where the marriage between the parties was performed. The basis of the judgment, as would appear from the passage quoted above, was that part of the cause of action in such a suit is the performance of marriage between the parties. A similar view has been taken by the Madras High Court in K. Vajravelu Mudaliar v. Rajalakshmi Ammal (AIR 1954 Mad 358). In view of the concession made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that a suit claiming maintenance allowance and a permanent injunction restraining the husband from entering into a second marriage during the subsistence of the marriage with the plaintiff is maintainable at the place where the parties entered into marriage, it is not necessary to pursue the subject any further.;