1

FCA333/14

Judgment

C
ou

rt

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY,
NAGPURBENCH,NAGPUR.
FAMILYCOURTAPPEALNo.333/2014
Kalpanaw/oGorakhnathDhone,
Agedabout42years,Occ:PrivateWork,
R/oC/oDevakaBabumatri,Kangarli(BK),
Tah.&Dist.Belgaum.

APPELLANT

ig
h

VERSUS

ShriGorakhnathGovindaDhone,
Agedabout50years,Occ:Service/Attendant
C/oAirportAuthorityofIndia,
AirportDirector,Nagpur(EmployeeNo.01B18)
PosingasSr.Attendant(ATC),
Nagpur(Maharashtra)

RESPONDENT

om

ba
y

ShriA.K.Bhangde,counselfortheappellant .
ShriS.V.Purohit,counselfortherespondent.

CORAM :SMT.VASANTIA.NAIKAND
PRASANNAB.VARALE,JJ.
DATE:JULY8,2015.

ORALJUDGMENT(PER:SMT.VASANTIANAIK,J.)
ThefamilyCourtappealis ADMITTED andheardfinallyat

thestageofadmissionastheappellantWifehasonlysoughtaremandof
themattertotheFamilyCourt,NagpuronthegroundthattheFamily
Court,NagpurdidnothavejurisdictiontoentertaintheHinduMarriage
PetitionfiledbytherespondentHusbandforadecreeofdivorceonthe
groundofcrueltyanddesertion.

::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2015 07:47:50 :::

FCA333/14

The marriage between the appellantWife and the

rt

2.

Judgment

C
ou

respondentHusbandwassolemnizedon12.07.1994inDeulwadiTemple,
DistrictKolhapur. Thepartiesstartedresidinginthematrimonialhome
atBelgaum.Accordingtothehusband,thewifewasnotreadytoreside

in the joint family and, therefore, there were quarrels between the
parties.Accordingtothehusband,thewifeabusedthehusbandinfilthy

ig
h

language,quarrelledwithhimandalsoassaultedhimonsomeoccasions.
According to the husband, the husband told the wife to change her
behaviour but, she did not change her ways. The husband sought a

transferofhisservicesfromBelgaumtoNagpurandstartedresidingin
Nagpurinearly1990s.Accordingtothehusband,thewifenevercameto

ba
y

Nagpurtojointhecompanyofthehusbanddespiteseveralrequests.The
husband filed Hindu Marriage Petition No.A192/2011 before the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur for divorce on the ground of

om

crueltyanddesertion.
3.

Thewifefiledthewrittenstatementanddeniedtheclaimof

the husband. According to the wife, the Family Court did not have
jurisdictiontoentertaintheHinduMarriagePetition. Accordingtothe
wife,sincenocauseofactionaroseatNagpur,theFamilyCourt,Nagpur
didnothavejurisdictiontoentertainanddecidethepetition. Thewife
also denied the allegationsmade againstherinrespectofcrueltyand
desertion.

::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2015 07:47:50 :::

FCA333/14

Onthepleadingsoftheparties,theFamilyCourtframedthe

rt

4.

Judgment

C
ou

issues. The husband examined himself and since he was not cross
examinedandthewifehadalsonotenteredintothewitnessbox,the
Family Court allowed the petition filed by the husband for grant of

divorce on the ground of cruelty after holding that the husband had
succeededinprovinghiscaseinthatregard.ThejudgmentoftheFamily

5.

ig
h

CourtischallengedbythewifeinthisfamilyCourtappeal.

ShriBhangde,thelearnedcounselforthewife,submittedthat

theFamilyCourtdidnothavejurisdictiontoentertainanddecidethe
HinduMarriagePetitionfiledbythehusband. Itissubmittedthatthe

ba
y

causeofactiondidnotariseatNagpurandthehusbandwasnotentitled
tofilethepetitionintheFamilyCourtatNagpur. Itisstatedthatthe
marriagebetweenthepartieswassolemnizedinaTempleinKolhapur

om

districtandthepartieslastresidedtogetheratBelgaum.Itisstatedthat
itisclearlymentionedbythehusbandintheHindumrriagePetitionthat

thewiferefusedtojointheCompanyofthehusbandatNagpurandhad
neverjoinedhimatNagpurafterhistransfer.Itissubmittedthatitwas
necessaryfortheFamilyCourttohaveframedtheissueofjurisdictionof
theFamilyCourt.ItisstatedthattheFamilyCourthasnotdecidedthe
issueofjurisdiction,therefore,itisnecessarytoremandthemattertothe
FamilyCourtforframingtheissueofjurisdictionanddecidingthesame.

::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2015 07:47:50 :::

FCA333/14

ShriPurohit,thelearnedcounselforthehusband,submitted

rt

6.

Judgment

C
ou

thatthewifefailedtoremainpresentbeforetheFamilyCourtatNagpur

despite opportunity and, therefore, the Family Court was justified in

grantingadecreeofdivorceinfavourofthehusband,afterconsidering
the evidence that remained unchallenged. It is submitted that in

paragraph6ofthejudgmentoftheFamilyCourt,someofthecontentsof

ig
h

thelegalnoticedated18.02.2011arereproducedandthecontentswould
showthatthewifehadleftthehusband1monthsbeforetheissuance
ofthelegalnotice. Itisstatedthatitisclearfromthecontentsofthe

noticethatthewifehadresidedatNagpurandhadleftthehusbandonly
a month and half before the issuance of the legal notice dated

ba
y

18.02.2011.

7.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears

om

that the following points arise for determination in this family Court

appeal.

I)

WhetheritwasnecessaryfortheFamilyCourttoframethe
issueofjurisdictionwhenapleaofabsenceofjurisdictionwas
specificallyraisedbythewifeinherwrittenstatement?

II)

WhetherthejudgmentoftheFamilyCourtisjustandproper?

III)

Whatorder?

::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2015 07:47:50 :::

FCA333/14

Toanswertheaforesaidpointsfordetermination,itwouldbe

rt

8.

Judgment

C
ou

necessarytoconsiderthepleadingsofthehusbandintheHinduMarriage
Petition. It is clearly pleaded by the husband in the Hindu Marriage

Petitionthatafterthemarriage,thepartiesstartedresidingatBelgaumin

thematrimonialhome.Itisfurtherpleadedbythehusbandthatafterthe
husbandwastransferredfromBelgaumtoNagpur,thewifedidnotcome

ig
h

toNagpurandrefusedtojoinhiscompanyatNagpur.Sincethemarriage
wasnotsolemnizedatNagpurandsince,accordingtothehusband,the
wife refused to join the company of the husband at Nagpur, the wife

raisedapleaofjurisdictioninthewrittenstatement. Accordingtothe
wifesincenopartofcauseofactionforfilingtheHinduMarriagePetition

ba
y

aroseatNagpur,theFamilyCourtatNagpurdidnothavejurisdictionto
entertainanddecidetheHinduMarriagePetition.Itappearsthatdespite
thespecificobjectionofthewifethattheHinduMarriagePetitioncould

om

notbeentertainedintheFamilyCourt,Nagpur,theFamilyCourt,Nagpur
didnotframetheissueinregardtothejurisdictionoftheFamilyCourt,

Nagpur. Without framing the issue of jurisdiction, the Family Court

proceededtodecidethepetitiononanassumptionthatithadjurisdiction
todecidetheHinduMarriagePetitionfiledbythehusband.Itisrightly
statedonbehalfofthewifethatitwasnecessaryfortheFamilyCourtto
haveframedtheissueofjurisdictionandifthesamewasansweredin
favour of the husband, then only the Family Court ought to have

::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2015 07:47:50 :::

FCA333/14

Judgment

rt

proceededtodecidetheHinduMarriagePetition,onmerits.Wefindon

C
ou

a perusalof the pleadings of the parties that it was necessary forthe

FamilyCourttohaveframedtheissueofjurisdiction.TheFamilyCourt

committed an error in not framing the issue of jurisdiction and

proceeding to decide the Hindu Marriage Petition, on merits. The
submissionmadeonbehalfofthehusbandthatsincetheFamilyCourt

ig
h

referred to the legal notice in paragraph 6 of the judgment and the

contentsofthenoticedepictthatthewifewasresidingwiththehusband
atNagpurand,hence,theFamilyCourtwasjustifiedinentertainingand

decidingtheHinduMarriagePetition,isliabletoberejected. Firstly,it
wasnecessaryfortheFamilyCourttoframetheissueofjurisdictionand

ba
y

thenpermitthepartiestotenderevidence,both,oralanddocumentary,
ontheissueofjurisdiction. Itisawellsettledpositionoflawthatthe
jurisdictionoftheCourtcannotbedecidedonthewrittenstatementor

om

thedocumentstenderedbytheparties.ThejurisdictionoftheCourthas
tobenecessarilydecidedonthebasisofthepleadingsoftheplaintiff.It

primafacieappearsonthebasisofthepleadingsintheHinduMarriage
Petition that the wife never joined the company of the husband at
Nagpur.Intheaforesaidcircumstances,itwasallthemorenecessaryfor
theFamilyCourttoframetheissueofjurisdiction. Thefirstpointfor
determinationis,therefore,answeredintheaffirmativeandinfavourof
thewife. Sincetheissueofjurisdictionwasnotframedandsincethe

::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2015 07:47:50 :::

FCA333/14

Judgment

rt

FamilyCourtproceededtodecidethematterwithoutdecidingtheissue

C
ou

ofjurisdiction,thejudgmentoftheFamilyCourtisliabletobequashed
andsetaside.

9.

Hence,forthereasonsaforesaid,thefamilyCourtappealis

partlyallowed. ThejudgmentoftheFamilyCourtdated26.09.2013is

ig
h

herebysetaside.ThematterisremandedtotheFamilyCourtforframing
anddecidingtheissueofjurisdictionandthenproceedingtodecidethe
HinduMarriagePetitiononlyiftheissueisansweredinfavourofthe

husband. The parties undertake to remain present before the Family

Court,Nagpuron03.08.2015,eitherpersonallyorthroughtheircounsel,

ba
y

sothatissuanceofthenoticetothepartiesbytheFamilyCourtcouldbe
dispensedwith.Inthecircumstancesofthecase,therewouldbenoorder

om

astocosts.

JUDGE JUDGE

APTE

::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2015 07:47:50 :::