P. Ramanujulu and others vs Siva Parvathi Ammal and another

Rajamannar, C.J.—This civil revision petition arises out of a suit filed by the respondents for two main relief's, namely, maintenance, past and future and recovery of Rs. 225 being the value of certain Sridhana properties belonging to the first respondent. The defendants who are the petitioners before me, are members of a joint Hindu family. The first defendant (first petitioner) is the husband of the first plaintiff (first respondent).

The other two petitioners are the parents of the first petitioner. The suit was filed in the Court of the District Munsif of Tirupattur. The first plaintiff and the first defendant were married at Vengalapuram village in Tirupattur taluk. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendants conspired together to drive out of the first plaintiff from her husband's house and brought her on a pretext to Tirupattur and left her at her parents'' house in the village of

Vengalapuram On these facts it was stated in paragraph 9 of the plaint that the cause of action for the suit arose when the marriage took place at

Vengalapuram in Tirupattur taluk and also when the defendants left and abandoned the plaintiffs at Vengalapuram. Subsequent to the filing of the written statement, an objection was raised on behalf of the defendants that the District Munsif's Court at Tirupattur had no jurisdiction to try the

suit, as the defendants were admittedly residents of Bangalore. In answer to this objection the plaintiffs stated that under S. 20 (c) CPC a suit could be filed in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arose and in this case as the plaintiffs were abandoned at Vengalapuram within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Tirupattur District Munsif's Court, the suit was maintainable in that

Court. The learned District Munsif overruled the objection raised on behalf of the defendants and held that the suit was maintainable in is Court. He rested his conclusion on the allegation in the plaint that the plaintiffs were abandoned at Tirupattur. The defendants seek for a revision of this order.

I agree with the learned District Munsif that the suit in so far as it is for the recovery of maintenance is maintainable in the Court at Tirupattur,

because certainly a part of the cause of action arose within its limits. It was specifically alleged that the husband abandoned the plaintiffs at

Tirupattur and abandonment could be certainly a part of the cause of action for a claim of maintenance. The learned Counsel for the petitioners cited to me the decision in M. Ramalinga Aiyar Vs. T.K. Jayalakshmi and Another, . But it has no bearing on the facts of this case. In that case the marriage took place at Negapatam. The husband resided at Vellore and owing to ill-treatment of her husband, the wife ran away from Vellore to her father's Plate at Palghat. Her father-in-law was residing at Mayavaram. She filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat against her husband for maintenance and against her father-in-law for the return of the Sridhanam properties alleged to have been entrusted to him. It was held that the Palghat Court had no jurisdiction, because the cause of action either for the recovery of maintenance or for the re delivery of the entrusted properties did not arise at Palghat. The learned judges overruled the contention that the common law rule of the debtor seeking out the creditor could be applied in, the circumstances of the case; that, is to say, treating the husband as the debtor and the wife as the creditor. I do not see how this decision can help the petitioners in any manner.

Mr. Kailasam, learned Counsel for the respondents referred me to the decision of Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. in K. Vajravelu Mudaliar Vs.

Rajalakshmi Ammal, where the learned Judge held that as marriage formed a part of the cause of action in a suit for maintenance, the suit for maintenance can be instituted at the place where the parties were married, It suffices to say in this case that, as the abandonment of the plaintiffs it alleged to have taken place within the local limits of the Tirupattur Court the suit filed in that Court is not bad for want of jurisdiction.

The claim for the recovery of Rs. 225 being the value of the Stridhana properties of the plaintiffs stand differently. The material allegation in

respect of this claim is contained in paragraph 6 of the plaint which runs thus :

When the first defendant took the plaintiffs out of his residence at Bangalore for visiting his relations at to wring pet, the first plaintiff left all her stridhanam properties described in the schedule hereunder in the residence of the defendants and the defendants are now in possession And

enjoyment of the same.

Admittedly the residence of the defendants is in Bangalore and therefore the suit will not be maintainable in the Tirupattur Court for the recovery

of the value of the Stridhanam properties left by the first plaintiff at Bangalore. The civil revision petition is there fore allowed to this extent, but dismissed otherwise. No costs.