Bombay High Court
Sau. Kiran Sitaram Gujla And Another vs Sitaram Anjnelu Gujla on 5 August, 2024
Author: G. A. Sanap
Bench: G. A. Sanap
2024:BHC-NAG:8785
-1- 13.REVN.202.2019. Judgment.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 202 OF 2019
APPLICANTS : 1. Sau. Kiran Sitaram Gujla, Aged
about 41 Years, Occupation :
Household.
2. Ku. Ashwini Sitaram Gujla, Aged
about 19 Years, Occupation :
Education.
Both Residents of C/o. Prakash
Natthuji Ramteke, Deshmukh Fail,
Akola, Taluka and District Akola.
//VERSUS//
NON-APPLICANT : Sitaram Anjnelu Gujla, Aged about
51 Years, Occupation : Service
(Accounts Officer), South Central
Divisional Railway Office, Statistical
Department, Hyderabad Bhawan,
Secunderabad (Andhra Pradesh).
**************************************************************
Smt. S.P. Deshpande, Advocate (appointed) for the Applicants.
Mr. A.M. Tirukh, Advocate for the Non-applicant.
**************************************************************
CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
DATED : 5th AUGUST, 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT
. Heard finally with the consent of learned advocates for
the parties.
-2- 13.REVN.202.2019. Judgment.odt
02] ADMIT.
03] In my view, considering the main issue of jurisdiction
being involved in this proceeding, this proceeding can be decided
without going into the merits of the matter.
04] The non-applicant, in his reply filed before the Family
Court at Akola, raised a specific contention that the Family Court
has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the application. It was
contended that the applicants neither resided at any time within
the jurisdiction of the Family Court at Akola nor were residing
within the jurisdiction of the Family Court at Akola on the date of
the filing of the application. It is also not the case of the applicants
that, at any time, the non-applicant resided within the jurisdiction
of the Family Court at Akola.
05] In view of this, the learned Judge was required to decide
the issue of jurisdiction, and depending upon the finding on this
issue, one way or the other was required to adopt further course of
action. In this case, the learned Judge has chosen to decide the
issue of jurisdiction with the main issues/points of fact. The
learned Judge has held that the Family Court at Akola has no
-3- 13.REVN.202.2019. Judgment.odt
jurisdiction to entertain and try the application.
06] Perusal of the order would show that, despite this
finding on the issue of jurisdiction, the learned Judge has
considered the application for maintenance on merits and rejected
the same as well. In my view, this order of the learned Judge
rejecting the application on merits is not in accordance with the
law. When a Court records a finding that it has no jurisdiction to
entertain the proceeding, the Court is required to return the plaint
or application to the party concerned for presentation before the
proper Court having the jurisdiction to decide the same. The order
or decree passed by the Court on merits without jurisdiction is
nullity.
07] In this case, therefore, after recording a finding on the
issue of jurisdiction against the applicants, the learned Judge was
required under the law to return the application to the applicants
for presentation before the proper Court. The learned Judge, as can
be seen from the order, has appreciated the evidence adduced by
the parties and dismissed the application for maintenance on
merits. In my view, this part of the order passed by the learned
Judge is without jurisdiction and therefore it cannot be sustained.
-4- 13.REVN.202.2019. Judgment.odt
As such, this revision application deserves to be allowed. Hence,
the following order:
ORDER
i] The Revision Application is allowed.
ii] The judgment and order dated 29.11.2017, passed by the
learned Judge of the Family Court at Akola, rejecting the
application on merits, is set aside.
iii] Since the Court has held that it has no jurisdiction to
entertain and try the application, the Court was required to return
the said application to the applicants for presentation before the
proper Court.
iv] In view of the setting aside of the order on merits,
Petition No. E-8/2017 stands restored. However, the finding
recorded by the learned Judge of the Family Court on the issue of
jurisdiction is not interfered with.
v] In view of this, the learned Judge of the Family Court
shall pass an order for return of the application to the applicants for
presentation before the Court having territorial jurisdiction.
vi] The parties are directed to appear before the Family
Court at Akola on 26th August, 2024.
-5- 13.REVN.202.2019. Judgment.odt
vii] The High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur,
shall pay the fees to the learned advocate appointed for the
applicants, as per Rules.
viii] The Revision Application stands disposed of in the
above terms.
(G. A. SANAP, J.)
Vijay
Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/08/2024 19:08:23
