Disposed

Ankit Mantri v. Smt Priyanka

Rajasthan HC19 Dec 2023CR/86/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil revision dismissing rejection of a jurisdiction objection. The High Court held that whether residence averments in a matrimonial plaint are correct must be decided via evidence, not Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It directed the trial court to decide jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned Court to decide any objection regarding jurisdiction raised in the written statement as a preliminary issue.

Ankit Mantri Vs Smt Priyanka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:44520]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 86/2023

¶4

Ankit Mantri S/o Shri Kailash Chandra Mantri, Aged About 30 Years, B/c Maheshwari R/o 21A C Block Roopsagar Road Ashirwad Nagar Girva Udaipur

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt Priyanka W/o Ankit Mantri, D/o Shri Shyam Sunder Kabra B/ c Maheshwari R/o Kabra Cottage Near Petrol Pump Ambaji Tehsil Danta Distt Banaskantha (Gujrat)

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Jawan Singh Rao
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶11

Order

¶12

19/12/2023

¶13

The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the learned Family Court (Additional District Judge First) Abu Road in Civil Matrimonial Case No.05/2023 whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC as filed on behalf of the defendant husband has been rejected. 2. The ground as raised in the application was that the Court at Abu Road does not have jurisdiction to hear the petition under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1955’) as preferred by the plaintiff as the plaintiff and the defendant never resided at Abu Road.

¶14

Vide the order impugned, the Court below, while referring to the pleadings as made by the plaintiff, observed that the plaintiff wife came with the specific averment that the plaintiff and the

[2023:RJ-JD:44520]

[CR-86/2023]

(2 of 3)

defendant resided at Abu Road just prior to separation. With the said observation, the Court proceeded on to reject the application as preferred by the defendant.

¶19

In the specific opinion of this Court, the said observation and the rejection of the application by the Court below does not deserve any interference as the same is totally in consonance with law.

¶20

A bare perusal of the plaint as annexed along with the present petition makes it clear that the plaintiff made the following averments in her plaint:

¶21

“4;g fd dqN le; ckn vizkFkhZ ds ifjokj okys izkfFkZ;k ds ihgj vEckth vk;s rFkk vuqu; fou; dj izkFkhZ;k dks okil llqjky pyus dk dgk ijUrq izkFkhZ;k }kjk vizkFkhZ ds vU;= fookgsrj laca/k gksus dk dFku djus ij lHkh ?kj ds cM+ks ds le>kus ij izkFkhZ;k rFkk vizkFkhZ nksuks us vkcwioZr esa lkFk esa jgus dk fu.kZ; fd;k ftl ij i{kdkjku vkcwioZr esa fuokl djus yxsA ijUrq vizkFkhZ iqu% vizkFkhZ;k dks ijs”kku djus yxk vkSj Øwjrk iw.kZ O;ogkj djus yxkA

¶22

5- ;g fd vizkFkhZ izkFkhZ;k ls yxkrkj ngst dh ekax djrk vkSj dgrk fd Hkw[ks uaxs ?kj ls vk;h gS] rsjs cki us “kknh esa gesa D;k fn;k] rq>s ikyus ds fy;s rw vius cki ds ?kj ls nks yk[k :i;s ysdj vk ugha rks rq>s ?kj ls fudky nawxkA izkFkhZ;k }kjk vizkFkhZ dh ckrks dk izfrjks/k djus ij vizkFkhZ izkFkhZ;k dks ekg fnlEcj 2021 ds vafre lIrkg esa izkFkhZ;k dks NksMdj vkcwioZr ls pyk x;kA”

¶23

In view of the above pleadings as made by the plaintiff, it is clear that the averment regarding residence of the parties at Abu Road has specifically been made in the plaint. For the decision on an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, the Court is required to go through the averments as made in the plaint only. Whether the said averments are incorrect/correct, the same cannot be considered at the stage of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC unless and until the same is evident on the face of it.

[2023:RJ-JD:44520]

[CR-86/2023]

(3 of 3)

The same could be a subject of adjudication only after the evidence being led on the same.

¶28

The averments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the application under Section 13-B of the Act of 1955 had earlier been preferred by both the parties jointly at Udaipur would be of no consequence for the purposes of the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC. The document, if any, in support of the ground as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner could be considered by the Court only on the evidence being led on the issue and the document being placed on record/exhibited. Therefore, the finding as reached by the Court below does not deserve any interference. 8. However, as the objection as raised by the defendant goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Court, it would be adequate and proper that the said issue is decided as a preliminary issue by the Court below.

¶29

In view of the same, the present revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Court that if an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Court is raised in the written statement by the defendant, the same be decided as a preliminary issue.

¶30

Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of .

¶31

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶32

70-KashishS/-

Ankit Mantri v. Smt Priyanka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Mantri v. Smt Priyanka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lala Ram Vs Kana Ram

Haviya Devi Vs Kuparam

Bhawani Singh and Anr. Vs Smt.Kanchan Devi and Ors.

M/S Shree Cement Limited Vs Chhotu Lal

M/S Shree Cement Limited Vs Ghewar Ram

Ambuja Cements Limited Vs Mantu Kavadia