Writ petition challenging a Family Court order that rejected an applicant's plea to dismiss a maintenance suit for lack of territorial jurisdiction. High Court held cause of action arose in Bangalore and dismissed the writ.
Writ petition dismissed; applications for interim relief closed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 18009 OF 2016 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. FAISAL AKTHAR MEV S/O. SIRAJ AKTHAR MEV, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.9, HABEEB COLONY, NEAR NAHAR SHAH WALI DARGAH, BEHIND KAMAL COMMUNITY HALL, KHAJRANA, INDORE, M.P.-452 018
PRESENTLY AT MICROSOFT INDIA (R & D) PVT. LTD., GACHIBOULI HYDERABAD-32
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.S.RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 677, 6TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 043.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.A.H. RAZVI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 5.12.2015 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE IN THE SUIT O.S.NO.175/2014 ON I.A.NO.3 (ANNEXURE-D).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.No.3 filed in O.S.No.175/2014 dated 5.12.2015 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, the respondent is before this court.
that the marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant took place at New Delhi and started matrimonial life at Hyderabad and the plaintiff No.2 born at Jharkhand. The Plaintiff No.1 filed a complaint against the defendant for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC at Hyderabad in C.C.No.181/2012 and at no point of time, the plaintiff No.1 and defendant resided together and never led marital life in Bangalore and the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 20 of CPC.
NC: 2024:KHC:32394 WP No. 18009 of 2016
Bangalore. Clause (c ) of Section 20 of CPC confers the jurisdiction of the court within whose local limits the cause of action wholly or in part arises. The court observed that the cause of action means the circumstances forming infraction of the right or immediate occasion for action and it should be ascertained from the facts stated in the plaint. The suit is only for maintenance and the documents filed before the court clearly shows that she is residing in Bangalore from 2012 which is within the jurisdiction of Bangalore Courts and accordingly it is held that the court is having territorial jurisdiction and rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
NC: 2024:KHC:32394 WP No. 18009 of 2016
Bombay in the case of
Mr.Pankaj Suryakant Lohar –Vs-
Mrs. Mayuri Pankaj Lohar1 , he also relied on para No.11 reads as follows:
11. As already observed above, the matter in hand is to be considered with reference to Section 20 r/w Order 7. Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908. It is to be noted that the pleadings in the plaint apparently disclose the residence of the applicant/defendant to be beyond the territorial limits of the District of Thane. The parties to the proceedings last resided at Goregaon. Mumbai, which is also beyond the territorial limits of the Thane Court. It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that on apprehension of danger to her life at the hands of the applicant/defendant and his family members, that she had to leave the matrimonial house at Goregaon. Apparently, the cause of action has also been arisen at Goregaon and considering the same on all counts, applying the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the jurisdiction to entertain the said proceedings would be with the Court at Mumbai. within whose territorial jurisdiction Goregaon is situated and hence it is to be held that the Court at Thane lacks the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and therefore the plaint is liable to be returned to the respondent/plaintiff to be presented in the Court of proper jurisdiction.
He has also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
1983 in the case of Arun Kumar Bedi –Vs- Smt. Anjana
Bedi2 para no.5 reads as follows:
5. Chief Justice Leach in the case of Ramalinga Iyer v. Jayalakshmi, AIR 1941 Mad 695 clearly pointed out that in a case like the present one no part of the cause of action for non-payment of the separate maintenance can be said to arise at the place where the wife resides. The Chief
2 AIR 1984 Cal 49
Justice pointed out that the cause of action for such a suit arises because the husband has maltreated his wife to such a degree the she cannot live with him any longer. Thus, the maltreatment or the desertion constitutes a part of the cause of action where the claim is a claim for separate maintenance, the right to the maintenance having arisen out of the marriage. Similar view was taken by the Madras and Allahabad High Courts in some other decisions cited by Mr. Chatterjee as also by Madhya Pradesh High Court in the decision we have referred to hereinbefore. Though Mr. Roy has contended that these decisions are distinguishable on the ground that they were based on the law prior to its codification under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, but in our opinion, these decisions cannot be distinguished on that ground because the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act only granted statutory recognition to what otherwise was the law applicable to the Hindus. The character of the liability has not materially changed when it had been incorporated in Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act corresponding to Section 2 of Hindu Married Women's Rights to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act (since repealed). In this view we accept the contention of Mr. Chatterjee that upon the plaint case itself the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the defendant does not live within his jurisdiction and no part of the cause of action arose within the said jurisdiction.
In the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. –Vs- Union of
India and another3 para 6 and 7 reads as follows :
6. Cause of action implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitute the cause of action. Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted inter alia to mean that every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Negatively put, it would mean that everything which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of action. Its importance is beyond any doubt. For every action, there has to be a cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily.
3 (2004) 6 SCC 254
7. Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India reads thus: "226. (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories."
Learned counsel for the petitioner basing on these judgments submits that the court below ought to have rejected the plaint as the court is not having jurisdiction.
NC: 2024:KHC:32394 WP No. 18009 of 2016
another4 and he submits that writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Para 6 of above referred judgment reads as follows:
6. The order of the family court is based upon section 20 to hold that the petition of the appellants has to be instituted in a court within local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendants at the time of commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, or where the cause of action, wholly or in part arises. Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 20 are independent of each other. Clause (c) of section 20 confers jurisdiction on a court within local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part arises. Whether the cause of action either wholly or in part arises in a suit would depend on the averments made in the suit or marriage petition for that matter. In other words, the cause of action for filing of the suit should be ascertained from the facts stated in the plaint/petition. The cause of action means the circumstances forming infraction of the right or immediate occasion for action. It is left to be determined in each individual case as to where the cause of action arises. The cause of action in suit/petition has no reference to the defence taken in the suit nor is it related to the evidence by which the cause of action is established
4 AIR 2003 BOM 390
in Hyderabad, the wife had filed petition under Section 498 of IPC. There after she moved to Bangalore in 2012 and started working in WIPRO and now this suit is filed in 2014. Now before going in to the merits of the matter, it is appropriate to look at Sec.20 of Civil Procedure Code which reads as follows:
Section 20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.
Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally works for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c)The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
can be instituted where defendant resides or cause of action arises. The cause of action for the plaintiff arose when she started residing in Bangalore and when the maintenance which the wife is entitled to, is not being paid by the husband. So it cannot be said that merely because the husband had never
NC: 2024:KHC:32394 WP No. 18009 of 2016
stayed with the wife in Bangalore that itself cannot be a ground to say that the courts at Bangalore have no jurisdiction. The cause of action has to be looked in to from the facts stated in the plaint. Cause of action as rightly observed by the court means circumstances forming infraction of the right or immediate occasion for action. The wife had a cause of action at Bangalore and the court had rightly dismissed the petition and this court finds no infirmity with the said order.
SD/JUDGE
TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the Family Court judgment rejecting an application to reject the plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction
Whether the cause of action for maintenance arose wholly or in part within the jurisdiction of the Bangalore Court
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mr. Pankaj Suryakant Lohar Vs. Mrs. Mayuri Pankaj LoharReferred¶35
AIR 2002 (4)Bom.L.R.330; Mr.Pankaj Suryakant Lohar –Vs- Mrs. Mayuri Pankaj Lohar · Who else cites this
Arun Kumar Bedi Vs. Smt. Anjana BediReferred¶38
1983 in the case of Arun Kumar Bedi –Vs- Smt. Anjana Bedi; AIR 1984 Cal 49 · Who else cites this
Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶45
(2004) 6 SCC 254; Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. –Vs- Union of India and another · Who else cites this
Sucheta Dilip Ghate Vs. Dilip Shantaram GhateReferred¶52
AIR 2003 BOM 390; Sucheta Dilip Ghate & another –Vs- Dilip Shantaram Ghate · Who else cites this
Ramalinga Iyer v. JayalakshmiReferred¶40
Ramalinga Iyer v. Jayalakshmi, AIR 1941 Mad 695 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI. FAISAL AKTHAR MEV
MRS. NISHAT SULTANA
HAIDER AKTHAR
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
