Dismissed

Shri.Vithal @ Vithoba Rama Koli v. Sou.Sushila Vithal Koli and Another

Bombay HC11 Aug 2010CRA/483/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision, the High Court rejected the applicant's challenge to the trial court's dismissal of his jurisdiction objection. The court held that the suit, primarily for a maintenance decree, does not depend on the location of the chargeable property for territorial jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Application was rejected.

Shri.Vithal @ Vithoba Rama Koli Vs Sou.Sushila Vithal… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

CRA 483-10

¶2

¶3

Anand

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.483 OF 2010

¶6

Vitthal alias Vithoba Rama Koli.Applicant

¶7

 V/s.

¶8

Sou. Sushila Vitthal Koli & anr..Respondents

¶9

Mr.Vijay Killedar, Advocate, for the Applicant
None for the Respondents

¶10

CORAM:R.C.CHAVAN, J.
DATE:11TH AUGUST, 2010

¶11

P.C.

¶12

.This Civil Revision Application is
directed against the order passed by the
learned Civil Judge, Junior Division,
Jaysingpur, District Kolhapur, rejecting the

¶13

Applicant�s Application Exhibit No.51 in
Regular Civil Suit No.43 of 2004, whereby
Applicant had objected to jurisdiction of the

¶14

Court to try the suit. The Applicant is
husband and father of the two Plaintiffs. The
Plaintiffs had filed a suit for maintenance.
The prayers in the plaint are to the following

¶15

2 CRA 483-10

¶16

effect. A decree for maintenance towards the
preceding year amounting to Rs.36,000/- should
be passed; the Defendant should be ordered to
pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- per
month and the charge of the decree may be kept
on the property mentioned in the schedule.
Now, the properties mentioned in the schedule
are agricultural lands and the residential
house situated at village Daflapur, Taluka
Jat, District Sangli outside the territorial
jurisdiction of Civil Judge, Junior Division,
Jaysingpur, District Kolhapur.

¶17

2.The grievance of the Applicant that
the learned Trial Judge should not have
rejected the Application merely because it was
filed at late stage may be correct, but the
learned Counsel for the Applicant has not been
able to show that as to how the Court at
Jaysingpur did not have jurisdiction to try
the suit. Suit is basically for a decree of
maintenance amount, with the incidental relief

¶18

3 CRA 483-10

¶19

to create charge on the properties of the

¶20

Defendant i. e. present Applicant. Therefore,
it cannot be said that the suit is in respect
of immovable properties situated outside the
territorial jurisdiction of Civil Judge,
JuniorDivision,Jaysingpur,District

¶21

Kolhapur. The learned Trial Judge, though for
wrong reasons, rightly refused to entertain
the objection raised by the Applicant.

¶22

3.CivilRevisionApplicationis,

¶23

therefore, rejected.

Shri.Vithal @ Vithoba Rama Koli v. Sou.Sushila Vithal Koli and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Vithal @ Vithoba Rama Koli v. Sou.Sushila Vithal Koli and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Bhoomi Ratna Developers through Its Partners Shri M. G. Patel and Ors. Vs Shri Lahorimal Jethanand through His Constituted Attorney Shri S. H. Chandnani and Ors.

M/S N.A.N. Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sanjay Harishchandra Chavan and Others

Yawar Bashir Khan Vs the Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority (Mhada), and Others

Shri.Vithal @ Vithoba Rama Koli Vs Sou.Sushila Vithal Koli and Another

Maruti Vikas Enterprises Vs Jitendra N. Patel@ Pokar and Other

Desh Bhushan Co-Op. Hou. Ltd., and Anr. Vs M/S. Sachinam Estate Developers Private Limited