Tarun Agarwala - (1.) -The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. for transfer of Matrimonial Suit No. 312 of 2003 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur to the Family Court at Lucknow. The petitioner alleged that the marriage was solemnized in Ghaziabad and that at no moment of time the petitioner and the defendant resided together at Kanpur and that the Kanpur Court had no territorial jurisdiction whatsoever to hear or decide the matrimonial dispute inter se between the parties in view of the specific provision of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which provides the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide the family dispute on the basis of the residence. The respondent is represented and affidavits have been exchanged.
(2.) HEARD Sri Shyamal Narain, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B. N. Rai, the learned counsel for the opposite party. A perusal of paragraph No. 21 of the divorce petition indicates that the petitioner was sent for medical treatment to Kanpur and in paragraph 24 it has been averred that the parties resided together at Kanpur for the purposes of treatment of the petitioner. On the basis of this allegation, the suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Act was filed before the Family Court at Kanpur. The petitioner has made a specific averment in paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the transfer application contending that she never resided at any point of time at Kanpur and, that in the year 2003, the defendant was posted in Barabanki where he worked in the State service as a Block Development Officer. This fact has not been denied by the opposite party in the counter-affidavit. Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, reads as under : "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 original civil jurisdiction- (i) the marriage was solemnised, or (ii) the respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition resides, or (iii) the parties to the marriage last resided together, or (iiia) in case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition, or. (iv) the petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where the respondent is, at that time, residing outside the territories to which this Act extends, or has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive."
(3.) A perusal of sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act indicates that a petition could be presented to the District Court where the parties to the marriage last resided together. The word "reside" means a place where one resides, abode, house. In the present context, the Legislature intended that where parties have lived under a roof in a permanent capacity or on a permanent basis and does not mean a temporary abode of living. In view of paragraphs 21, 22 and 24 of the divorce petition, the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, Kanpur was invoked on the ground that the parties had resided together at Kanpur at some place for the purpose of providing the medical treatment to the petitioner. This allegation by itself indicates that the residence at Kanpur, if any, was only temporary in nature and by this method a divorce petition would not lie at Kanpur. The address given by the defendant in the array of the parties indicates his residence at Lucknow and permanent address at Ambala. This also indicates the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, Kanpur.;