Dismissed

Namratha Ahuja Visakapatnam v. Harish Jahuja Bhilai Durg M.P.State

Telangana HC20 Jun 2013CRP/4348/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of a revision petition challenging the return of a restitution of conjugal rights petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the petition after a decade, noting potential lapse of cause of action and unknown state of affairs between parties.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; Miscellaneous Petition disposed of; No order as to costs.

Namratha Ahuja Visakapatnam Vs Harish Jahuja… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4348 OF 2000

¶3

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)

¶4

The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage took place in the year 1997 at Bhilai in the State of Madhya Pradesh. However, shortly thereafter, differences have arisen between them on account of which the petitioner came to the house of her parents at Visakhapatnam. She filed O.P.No.339 of 1999 in the Family Court, Visakhapatnam, against the respondent, who is non-resident of State o f Andhra Pradesh, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, ‘the Act’) for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. After receiving notice, the respondent entered appearance and raised an objection as to the territorial jurisdiction. It is stated that their marriage took place in the State of Madhya Pradesh and the O.P. was not filed within the jurisdiction of the Court in that State. The trial Court sustained the objection and returned the petition to be presented in a Court that has jurisdiction to decide the matter. The same is challenged in this revision.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶6

The O.P. filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act was returned for being presented in a proper Court. More than a decade has elapsed, eversince the order under revision was passed. It is no doubt true that the Parliament amended Section 19 of the Act providing for institution of proceedings in the Court within whose territorial jurisdiction a woman spouse resides. Viewed from that angle, the order under revision cannot be sustained. The fact, however, remains that more than a decade has elapsed and

¶7

the cause of action to institute a petition under Section 9 of the Act may not exist now. Added to that, it is not known as to what state of affairs is prevailing between the parties.

¶8

Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the remedies, if she has any subsisting cause of action.

¶9

The miscellaneous petition filed in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand disposed of.

¶10

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

____________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶12

_________________ S.V. BHATT, J.

¶13

20.06.2013 KH

Namratha Ahuja Visakapatnam v. Harish Jahuja Bhilai Durg M.P.State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namratha Ahuja Visakapatnam v. Harish Jahuja Bhilai Durg M.P.State

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

Secy Boduppal and Changincharla Plot O.Asn Vs Dt Collector and 141 Others.

Mysagalla balamma Vs Governament of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Bulchand and Company, partnership Firm, Vs Khamrunnisa Begum (died) as per L.Rs. 2 to 9 herein

V.Sita Ronfed Vs v.Ronfed

A.Srinivas Vs a.Rani Ratna Prabha , Rani

Vijender Pershad Jaiswal Vs Manmohan Pershad Jaiswal and Anr.