CRP No.26 of 2026 Page 1 of 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRP NO.26 of 2026

CNR NO. ODHC010200902026

(In the matter of application under Section 115 of Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908).

Biswaranjan Dash … Petitioner

-versus-

Manasi Mohapatra … Opposite Party

For Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Rath, Advocate

For Opposite Party :

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:21.09.2026(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. The short grievance of the husband-petitioner

in this revision is against the impugned order refusing

to reject the application filed by the wife-OP U/S.13(1)

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, “the Act”) for

divorce in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court

Bhubaneswar.

2. Admittedly, the petitioner and OP in this

revision are the husband and the wife and their

marriage was solemnized on 08.07.2018 at Hotel

CRP No.26 of 2026 Page 2 of 7

Gopinath, Khandapada Road, Nayagarh in presence of

their family members, friends and well-wishers, but due

to dissension, the OP-wife filed an application before

the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar for

dissolution of their marriage, however, in such

application, the husband presented an application

under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure

(in short, “CPC”) for rejection of the application filed by

the OP-wife for divorce on the grounds that the learned

Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar lacks territorial

jurisdiction, since the marriage was neither solemnized

within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court nor

did the parties last resided together within the

jurisdiction of the said Court nor was the husband, at

time of presentation resided within the jurisdiction of

the said Court, however, the learned Judge, Family

Court, Bhubaneswar by the impugned order rejected

such application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC as

filed by the husband on the ground that the trial of the

case is at fag end and posted for argument.

CRP No.26 of 2026 Page 3 of 7

3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Deba Kumar

Rath, learned counsel appearing virtually for the

petitioner submits by highlighting the provision of

Section 19 of the Act that the Court lacks territorial

jurisdiction to try the case on account of the parties

neither residing together within the jurisdiction of the

family Court nor does the wife satisfy any of the other

grounds as provided in Section 19 of the Act to file a

petition for divorce in the said family Court, but the

learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar has

erroneously passed the impugned order rejecting the

application of the husband and, thereby, the impugned

order needs to be set-aside and considered afresh.

Accordingly, Mr. Rath prays to set-aside the impugned

order.

4. Admittedly, the notice issued against OP-wife

returned with postal endorsement “No such person in

this address”, but this Court considering the submission

wants to examine the maintainability of the petition

filed by the revision petitioner-husband at the

CRP No.26 of 2026 Page 4 of 7

threshold. The main challenge of the petitioner-

husband in this revision is as to the territorial

jurisdiction of the trial Court in terms of the provision of

Section 19 of the Act, which is extracted as under”-

“19. Court to which petition shall be

presented-Every petition under this Act shall

be presented to the District Court within the

local limits of whose ordinary original civil

jurisdiction-

(i) the marriage was solemnized, or

(ii) the respondent, at the time of the

presentation of the petition, resides, or

(iii) the parties to the marriage last resided

together, or

(iii-a) in case the wife is the petitioner, where

she is residing on the date of presentation of

the petition, or

(iv) the petitioner is residing at the time of

the presentation of the petition, in a case

where the respondent is, at that time,

residing outside the territories to which this

Act extends, or has not been heard of as

being alive for a period of seven years or

more by those persons who would naturally

have heard of him if he were alive.”

5. A careful perusal of the provision of Section

19(iii-a) of the Act makes it ample clear that in case the

wife is the petitioner, every petition under this Act shall

be presented to the District Court within the local limits

CRP No.26 of 2026 Page 5 of 7

of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the wife is

residing on the date of presentation of the petition, but

on a plain perusal of the cause title of the revision

petition, it is found that the OP-wife is residing at LB-

134, Stage-II, Laxmisagar BDA Colony, PO-Budheswari,

PS-Laxmisagar, Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khordha. Further,

the copy of the impugned order containing the address

of the petitioner reveals that the OP-wife is residing in

the same address as indicated above and, thereby, the

case of the OP-wife squarely comes under sub-section

(iii-a) to Section 19 of the Act and, thereby, conferring

jurisdiction on the learned Judge, Family Court,

Bhubaneswar to proceed in the matter.

6. In addition to the above, Section 21(1) of the

CPC makes it very clear that “no objection to the place

of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional

Court, unless such objection was taken in the Court of

first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in

all cases where issues are settled at or before such

settlement, and unless there has been a consequent

CRP No.26 of 2026 Page 6 of 7

failure of justice”. In this case, the order sheet

produced by the petitioner-husband in the revision

discloses that evidence has already been taken with

examination of PW1 and, thereby, the objection to the

place of suing has not been taken at the earliest point

of time, rather the impugned order suggests that the

case was posted for argument. In such view of the

matter, it simply appears to the Court that the

petitioner-husband in order to protract the litigation has

filed such application raising objection to territorial

jurisdiction of the Court at this stage.

7. No doubt, the learned counsel for the

petitioner-husband refers to the cross-examination of

PW1 (wife) to suggest that the wife is not residing at

Bhubaneswar, however, the relevant part of the

evidence in para-29 of the cross-examination as

indicated by the learned counsel for the petitioner

reveals that the wife had left Bhubaneswar after

prosecuting PGDCA, but such evidence does not mean

that the wife cannot come back and reside in

CRP No.26 of 2026 Page 7 of 7

Bhubaneswar. Even otherwise, the provisions of Order

VII Rule 11 of the CPC do not confer power on the

Court to reject the plaint for want of territorial

jurisdiction and in case, the Court comes to a

conclusion that it has no territorial jurisdiction, it can

return the plaint, but by no means the Court can reject

the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. Albeit, the

revision-petitioner claims that the wife has no cause of

action to proceed against the husband, but rather such

assertion appears to be no more than a figment of his

imagination, since nothing was produced or

demonstrated by the revision-petitioner to establish

that the wife has no cause of action to file an

application for divorce against the husband-revision

petitioner.

8. In the result, the present Civil Revision being

devoid of merit stands dismissed.

(G. Satapathy)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,

Dated the 21

st

day of September, 2026/Subhasmita