Skip to content


Sm. Premlatika Sircar Vs. Provash Ch. Sircar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberDivorce Suit No. 4 of 1949
Judge
Reported inAIR1953Cal242
ActsDivorce Act, 1869 - Section 3(3) and 3(4)
AppellantSm. Premlatika Sircar
RespondentProvash Ch. Sircar
Excerpt:
- .....in view of the statement in the petition and in the evidence of the petitioner, it is quite apparent that the parties do not reside or did not last reside together within the jurisdiction of the district court of howrah. the district court, howrah, had no jurisdiction to make a decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage. the petition must, therefore, be disallowed on this ground.2a. the decree nisi passed by the district court, howrah, is set aside as having been passed without jurisdiction.guha ray, j. 3. i agree.s.k. sen, j. 4. i agree.
Judgment:

G.N. Das, J.

1. This matter has come up before this Court for confirmation of a decree nisi made by the District Judge, Howrah, directing that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent be dissolved. One of the points raised related to the jurisdiction of the Court.

2. On going through the papers it appears that in the petition the allegation was that the petitioner, the wife, and the respondent the husband, last lived together at Lake place, Ballygunge, which is within the jurisdiction of the District Court, 24 Parganas. In her evidence the petitioner did not say that she and her husband last lived together or at present reside at any place within the jurisdiction of the District Court of Howrah. The petitioner merely stated that she lived at Amta within the said jurisdiction under Section 4, Divorce Act, the Court which is competent to make an order for dissolution of marriage is the District Court. The term 'District Court' is defined in Section 3(3) of the Act as meaning the 'Court of the District Judge within whose jurisdiction both the parties, i.e., the husband and the wife, reside or last resided'.

Residence of both the parties and not merely of one of them, is necessary. In view of the statement in the petition and in the evidence of the petitioner, it is quite apparent that the parties do not reside or did not last reside together within the jurisdiction of the District Court of Howrah. The District Court, Howrah, had no jurisdiction to make a decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage. The petition must, therefore, be disallowed on this ground.

2a. The decree nisi passed by the District Court, Howrah, is set aside as having been passed without jurisdiction.

Guha Ray, J.

3. I agree.

S.K. Sen, J.

4. I agree.


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