Skip to content


Chhittar and ors. Vs. Harju - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1919All96(1); 54Ind.Cas.120
AppellantChhittar and ors.
RespondentHarju
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 20(c) - restitution of conjugal rights, suit for--cause of action, accrual of--place of suing. - ryves, j.1. this appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against his wife for restitution of conjugal rights and against three other defendants, praying that an injunction be issued against them not to interfere in any way with the plaintiff's wife coming to reside with him. the suit was brought in the court of the munsif of shahjahanpur. the defendants all reside in the district of hardoi in the province of oudh. the trial court decreed the suit. the defendants other than defendant no. 1, the wife, appealed. in their grounds of appeal it was urged that the suit was not cognisable by the court of shahjahanpur. the same plea had been raised in the trial court and formed the subject of an issue. there the court held, and rightly held, following the ruling of lalitagar keshargar.....
Judgment:

Ryves, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against his wife for restitution of conjugal rights and against three other defendants, praying that an injunction be issued against them not to interfere in any way with the plaintiff's wife coming to reside with him. The suit was brought in the Court of the Munsif of Shahjahanpur. The defendants all reside in the district of Hardoi in the province of Oudh. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The defendants other than defendant No. 1, the wife, appealed. In their grounds of appeal it was urged that the suit was not cognisable by the Court of Shahjahanpur. The same plea had been raised in the Trial Court and formed the subject of an issue. There the Court held, and rightly held, following the ruling of Lalitagar Keshargar v. Bai Suraj 18 B : 816 that the cause of action against the wife arose in absenting herself from the plaintiff's residence, which was in Shahjahanpur. It is not quite dear how the Court had jurisdiction against the other defendants. But I find that neither Court has come to any finding that the present appellants prevented or would in the future prevent the defendant No. 1, the wife, going back to her husband. This being so, I think the appeal must succeed. The result is that I allow the appeal and set aside the decree of the Court below 80 far as it affects the appellants. They are entitled to their costs in all Courts.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //