Rev of order rejecting jurisdiction objection in maintenance suit. Held that suit is for maintenance amount not immovable property, so trial court had jurisdiction.
Civil Revision Application rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRA 483-10
1
Anand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.483 OF 2010
Vitthal alias Vithoba Rama Koli.Applicant
V/s.
Sou. Sushila Vitthal Koli & anr..Respondents
Mr.Vijay Killedar, Advocate, for the Applicant
None for the Respondents
CORAM:R.C.CHAVAN, J.
DATE:11TH AUGUST, 2010
P.C.
.This Civil Revision Application is
directed against the order passed by the
learned Civil Judge, Junior Division,
Jaysingpur, District Kolhapur, rejecting the
Applicant�s Application Exhibit No.51 in
Regular Civil Suit No.43 of 2004, whereby
Applicant had objected to jurisdiction of the
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
2 CRA 483-10
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.
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
3 CRA 483-10
to create charge on the properties of the
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
Kolhapur. The learned Trial Judge, though for
wrong reasons, rightly refused to entertain
the objection raised by the Applicant.
3.CivilRevisionApplicationis,
therefore, rejected.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suit for maintenance falling under Section 125 CrPC creates incidental charge on properties to bring the trial within the jurisdiction of the court.
Vitthal alias Vithoba Rama Koli
Sou. Sushila Vitthal Koli
Another Respondent
R.C.Chavan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court