Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Chhittar and ors. Vs. Harju

Chhittar and ors. vs Harju

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Oct 31, 1919
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/471286

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Miscellaneous

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908), Section 20(c) - Restitution of conjugal rights, suit for--Cause of action, accrual of--Place of suing. -

Key legal issue
Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chhittar and ors.

Respondent

Harju

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1919All96(1); 54Ind.Cas.120

Excerpt

civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 20(c) - restitution of conjugal rights, suit for--cause of action, accrual of--place of suing. - ryves, j.1. this appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against his wife for restitution of conjugal rights and against three other defendants, praying that an injunction be issued against them not to interfere in any way with the plaintiff's wife coming to reside with him. the suit was brought in the court of the munsif of shahjahanpur. the defendants all reside in the district of hardoi in the province of oudh. the trial court decreed the suit. the defendants other than defendant no. 1, the wife, appealed. in their grounds of appeal it was urged that the suit was not cognisable by the court of shahjahanpur. the same plea had been raised in the trial court and formed the subject of an issue. there the court held, and rightly held, following the ruling of lalitagar keshargar v. bai suraj 18 b : 816 that the cause of action against the wife arose in absenting herself from the plaintiff's residence, which was in shahjahanpur. it is not quite dear how the court had jurisdiction against the other defendants. but i find that neither court has come to any finding that the present appellants prevented or would in the future prevent the defendant no. 1, the wife, going back to her husband. this being so, i think the appeal must succeed. the result is that i allow the appeal and set aside the decree of the court below 80 far as it affects the appellants. they are entitled to their costs in all courts.

Full Judgment

Ryves, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against his wife for restitution of conjugal rights and against three other defendants, praying that an injunction be issued against them not to interfere in any way with the plaintiff's wife coming to reside with him. The suit was brought in the Court of the Munsif of Shahjahanpur. The defendants all reside in the district of Hardoi in the province of Oudh. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The defendants other than defendant No. 1, the wife, appealed. In their grounds of appeal it was urged that the suit was not cognisable by the Court of Shahjahanpur. The same plea had been raised in the Trial Court and formed the subject of an issue. There the Court held, and rightly held, following the ruling of Lalitagar Keshargar v. Bai Suraj 18 B : 816 that the cause of action against the wife arose in absenting herself from the plaintiff's residence, which was in Shahjahanpur. It is not quite dear how the Court had jurisdiction against the other defendants. But I find that neither Court has come to any finding that the present appellants prevented or would in the future prevent the defendant No. 1, the wife, going back to her husband. This being so, I think the appeal must succeed. The result is that I allow the appeal and set aside the decree of the Court below 80 far as it affects the appellants. They are entitled to their costs in all Courts.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial