Telangana High Court
Smt. Kandukuri Alias Ponnapalli ... vs Kandukuri Pavan Kumar on 2 August, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1966 of 2024
ORDER:
The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the docket order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (for short, the 'Family Court') in an O.P. which was at the S.R. stage i.e. S.R.No.3259 of 2024.
2. Heard Mr. E.Venkata Siddhartha, learned counsel representing Mr. V.Dharma Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The FCOP before the Family Court has been presented by the petitioner herein under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the 'Act of 1955') seeking for dissolution of the marriage and for granting decree of divorce. The said FCOP at the S.R. stage was returned back on the ground of the Family Court at Ranga Reddy District not having territorial jurisdiction.
4. The returning of the FCOP on the ground of territorial jurisdiction was for the reason that the petitioner being posted for some time at the time of filing of the petition as Principal Junior Civil Page 2 of 6 Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mahabubabad. This was taken as an objection by the Registry of the Family Court stating that the petitioner in fact was not residing in the territories of Ranga Reddy District so as to have the territorial jurisdiction for the Family Court at Ranga Reddy for taking cognizance on the said FCOP.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner today at the time of arguments on admission submitted that since the petitioner happens to be a Judicial Officer, the place of posting continues to get changed at regular intervals and undoubtedly for some time she was posted at Mahabubabad, however, subsequently she now stands transferred at Adilalabad with effect from 31.07.2024 where she has joined and assumed the charge. It was in this context that the place of posting of the petitioner would be a temporary one and that she having hailed from Ranga Reddy District where she was born and bought up, where she has permanent residence and where she had last resided with the respondent that the petitioner thought it fit for filing the FCOP at the Family Court at Ranga Reddy District.
6. It is this FCOP which stands rejected on the ground of territorial jurisdiction leading to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition.
Page 3 of 6
7. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which in fact has been referred to by the Family Court also i.e. Smt. Jeewanti Pandey v. Kishan Chandra Pandey 1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court defining and explaining the terms "residence" and "resides" held at paragraph Nos.12 and 13 as under, viz., "12. In order to give jurisdiction on the ground of "residence", something more than a temporary stay is required. It must be more or less of a permanent character, and of such a nature that the court in which the respondent is sued, is his natural forum. The word "resides" is by no means free from all ambiguity and is capable of a variety of meanings according to the circumstances to which it is made applicable and the context in which it is found. It is capable of being understood in its ordinary sense of having one's own dwelling permanently, as well as in its extended sense. In its ordinary sense "residence" is more or less of a permanent character. The expression "resides" means to make an abode for a considerable time; to dwell permanently or for a length of time; to have a settled abode for a time. It is the place where a person has fixed home or abode. In Webster's Dictionary, "to reside" has been defined as meaning "to dwell permanently or for any length of time", and words like "dwelling place" or "abode" are held to be synonymous. Where there is such fixed home or such abode at one place the person cannot be said to reside at any other place where he had gone on a casual or temporary visit, e.g. for health or business or for a change. If a person lives with his wife and children, in an established home, his legal and actual place of residence is the same. If a person has no established home and is compelled to live in hotels, boarding houses are houses of others, his actual and physical habitation is the place where he actually or personally resides.
1 (1981) 4 Supreme Court Cases 517 Page 4 of 6
13. It is plain in the context of clause (ii) of Section 19 of the Act, that the word "resides" must mean the actual place of residence and not a legal or constructive residence; it certainly does not connote the place of origin. The word "resides" is a flexible one and has many shades of meaning, but it must take its colour and content from the context in which it appears and cannot be read in isolation. It follows that it was the actual residence of the appellant, at the commencement of the proceedings, that had to be considered for determining whether the District Judge, Almora, had jurisdiction, or not. That being so, the High Court was clearly in error in upholding the finding of the learned District Judge that he had jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition for annulment of marriage filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the Act."
8. Keeping in view the Hon'ble Supreme Court's analysis in the aforesaid judgment, if we look into the facts of the present case, admittedly the petitioner herein is a permanent resident of Ranga Reddy District. Equally admitted is the fact that she is presently working as a Judicial Officer in the Telangana State judiciary. As a consequence of her being a Judicial Officer, she needs to discharge her duties wherever she is posted and in the process the place of posting keeps on getting transferred on administrative terms and reasons time and again.
9. Keeping that in mind, if we read the portion of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Jeewanti Pandey (supra) referred to earlier, it would clearly reflect that, what in the given situation needs to be considered by the Court Page 5 of 6 while considering the aspect of jurisdiction is whether the present residence or the place where the petitioner is presently residing temporarily on account of her service in which she is working would be the place where she has to file a petition or will be at a place which for all other purposes would have a nature of permanent character. Undoubtedly in the present case Ranga Reddy District is the place where she was born and bought up and which is also the place where according to the petitioner she had last resided with the respondent.
10. In the light of the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is of the firm view that the rejection of the FCOP at S.R. stage by the Family Court does not seem to be proper, legal and justified. Accordingly, the docket order dated 18.06.2024 in an O.P. which was at the S.R. stage i.e. S.R.No.3259 of 2024 passed by the Family Court in the case of Smt. Kandukuri @ Ponnapalli Mounika v. Kandukuri Pavan Kumar is set-aside and the matter stands remitted back to the Family Court at Ranga Reddy District to register the case and to proceed further in accordance with law.
11. It would be left open for the respondent if at all he has an objection in respect of the jurisdiction or in respect of the Page 6 of 6 maintainability of the FCOP to raise them and which would be duly considered at an appropriate stage and decided by the Family Court.
12. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No costs.
13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J Date: 02.08.2024 GSD