1981 (10) TMI 188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt, it is necessary to state a few facts. It appears that the parties originally belonged to village Bagyan, District Pithoragarh, in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The appellant's A case is that they fell in love and she became enceinte, as the respondent had access to her during the period of courtship. Her case is that she wanted to marry the respondent, but her father was opposed to the alliance as her elder brother and sister were unmarried. She was therefore brought in an advanced stage of pregnancy to Delhi and through the intervention of her uncle Basant Kumar, the marriage was solemnised on January 24, 1976 according to Arya Samaj rites at the Arya Samaj Mandir, Hanuman Road, New Delhi. Three days after the marriage, i.e. On Janua....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n February 25, 1977 the Subordinate Judge, Class 1, Delhi decreed the appellant's suit for restitution of conjugal rights under s 9 of the Act. In decreeing her claim for restitution of conjugal rights, the learned Subordinate Judge observed: "That to sum up, the evidence adduced by petitioner proves that the petitioner and respondent were known to each other and had developed sexual intimacy. It is further proved that the respondent married the petitioner at Delhi on 24.1.1976 of his own sweet free will according to Hindu rites. The petitioner delivered a dead child on 23.3.1976 would show that on the date of marriage, the petitioner was running in 7th month of pregnancy. Such advanced stage of pregnancy could not be hidden from....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rict Judge preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court by its judgment dated August 6, 1979 upheld the finding of the learned District Judge observing: "The allegations made in the written statement do unmistakably show that the respondent was ordinarily residing at village Bagyan which was within the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the Court or District Judge, Almora. A Even if she happened to be in Delhi on the date when the petition was presented, she must have gone to Delhi only on a temporary visit as she had no place of residence at Delhi and the respondent could not be said to have been residing at Delhi when the petition was presented in the District Court." In arriving at that conclusion, the Hi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant kumar at Lajwanti Garden, New Delhi is not in dispute. It is, therefore, clear that the conditions laid down in cls. (i) and (iii) of s. 19 of the Act are not present to invest the Court of the District Judge, Almora to entertain the petition for annulment of marriage filed by the respondent under s, 12 of Act, The question that arises is whether the learned District Judge was invested with jurisdiction by reason of cl. (ii) of s. 19 of the Act, i.e. whether, at the time of presentation of the petition, the appellant was a resident of village Bagyan within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of District Judge. In order to give jurisdiction on the ground of 'residence', something more than a temporary stay is required. It ....