Bombay High Court
Pravinbee Sk Shaikil And Others vs Sk Shakil Sk Atik on 9 August, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/12143/2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12143 OF 2015
1. Pravinbee Sk. Shakil
Age 32 years, Occ. Household,
r/o c/o Sk. Gafur Marum Topekhana,
In front of Old Government Hospital,
Tq. and Dist. Hingoli.
2. Sk. Hamid Sk. Gafur,
Age major, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o as Above.
3. Sk. Salim Sk. Gafur
Age major, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o as Above.
4. Sk. Matin Sk. Gafur,
Age major, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o as Above.
5. Raziyabee Sk. Gafur
Age major, Occ. Household,
R/o as Above. ..Petitioners
Versus
Sk. Shakil Sk. Atik
Age 35 years, Occ. Business
R/o Nutan Colony, Bhokardan,
District Jalna. ..Respondent
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Shri Ayaz A Khan
Advocate for Respondent : Shri Ingle Babasaheb D.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: August 09, 2017
...
WP/12143/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. Rule.
3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is
taken up for final disposal.
4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2014, by
which, the trial Court has rejected application Exhibit 12 and
consequentially the request of the petitioner / defendant that the plaint
filed by the respondent / husband be returned under Order VII Rule 10
of the Code of Civil Procedure, is turned down.
5. I have perused the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate
(F.C.), in Misc. Criminal Application No. 21 of 2014 under Section 12 of
the Domestic Violence Act ("D.V. Act"), dated 9.5.2017.
6. The petitioner contends that after the marriage between the two
sides on 7.10.2001 at Hingoli, the husband started residing with the
petitioner in her maternal home. The husband has claimed that the wife
and her relatives used to beat him. Consequentially, RCS No.203 of
WP/12143/2015
2013 was filed at Bhokardan, where the husband ordinarily resides and
operates his business. Since he performed his marital duties at the
residence of the petitioner / wife, the said suit could not have been filed
at Bhokardan as the petitioner had never resided with her husband at
Bhokardan.
7. I find from the judgment of the court of Criminal jurisdiction
dated 9.5.2017 delivered under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, that the
petitioner herself had averred that after her marriage, she proceeded to
the residence of her husband and lived there for a few years. A son was
also born. Due to physical abuse and harassment, she left the marital
home. The Court has partly allowed the said case and directed the
husband to pay maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the wife and
Rs. 1,200/- to the son.
8. Notwithstanding the rival contentions of the parties in RCS
No.203 of 2013, the judgment dated 9.5.2017 is the first judicial
pronouncement in the matters between the two sides, whereby the
contention of the wife that she was residing with her husband at his
home has been considered. Even otherwise, Section 20(c) of the Code
of Civil Procedure would be applicable. The cause of action, if arises
even in part at a particular place, the suit can be instituted in the Court,
if the local limits of the place fall within the jurisdiction of that Court at
WP/12143/2015
that place. In the domestic violence case, the petitioner / wife has
contended that she was driven out of her marital home and therefore,
the cause of action arose. If that be the case, then the suit seeking
restitution of conjugal rights would have it's origin at the place where
the petitioner / wife lived with her husband.
9. Considering the above, I do not find that the impugned order
could be termed as being perverse or erroneous. This petition being
devoid of merits is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
