Holding

A civil court may, in appropriate cases, direct parties to appear personally and the High Court’s order directing personal appearance and issuing a non‑bailable warrant was within its jurisdiction.

Summary

Jagraj Singh married Birpal Kaur in 1993; the wife later filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging desertion and cruelty. The trial court ruled it lacked territorial jurisdiction but nonetheless decided the merits, denying divorce. The High Court, invoking Section 23(2) of the Act, ordered both parties to appear personally; the husband failed to appear and a non‑bailable warrant was issued. The husband appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136, contending that the High Court had no power to compel personal appearance or issue the warrant. The Supreme Court held that, under the Code of Civil Procedure and the statutory duty to attempt reconciliation, a court may direct personal appearance and that the High Court acted within its jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Issues considered

Whether a court under the Hindu Marriage Act can direct a party to appear personally in matrimonial proceedings
Whether the issuance of a non‑bailable warrant for failure to appear is within the court's jurisdiction
Whether a trial court, after finding lack of jurisdiction, may proceed to decide the merits of a divorce petition
Whether Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act imposes a duty on the court to secure personal presence for reconciliation

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order III Rule 1, s. Order IX Rule 12, s. Order XXXII‑A Rule 3
Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976
Constitution of Indias. Article 136
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955s. 13, s. 23(1), s. 23(2), s. 23(3)

Subjects

divorceHindu Marriage Actpersonal appearancereconciliationnon‑bailable warrantjurisdictionCode of Civil ProcedureArticle 136matrimonial law

Judgment

A JAGRAJ SINGH
v.
BIRPALKAUR

FEBRUARY 13, 2007

B [C.K. THAKKERANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.]

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; ss. 13, 23(1)(2) and (3)/Code of Civil ,/
Procedure, 1908; 0.1/I R.I; 0.IX R.2; O.XXXJJ-A R.3:

c Divorce-Restitution of corijugal rights-Role of trial Court-Presence
of parties in Court on date of hearing-Necessity of-Held: In appropriate
case, a Civil Court may direct a party to the suit to appear in person-
Approach ofCourt ofLaw in matrimonial cases must be constructive, affirmative
and productive-Such matter must be considered by Courts with human
D angle and sensitivity-Delicate issues affecting conjugal relations have to be
handled carefully-Legal provisions should be construed and interpreted
without being oblivious or unmindful of human weaknesses-Court of Law
to make efforts to bring about reconciliation between the parties in terms of
s.23(2) of the Act-In the instance case, no such efforts made by trial Court-
Though issue of jurisdiction decided against the petitioner-wife yet trial
E Court preferred to decide the petition on merit against the settled law on the
issue, which could not have been done-Despite interim stay granted against
issuance of non-bailable warrants, the husband continued to disobey and
flout the order passed by the Court-Therefore, he cannot claim as of right
the equitable relief from this Court--{;onstitution of India, 1950-Article
F 136.

Marriage of the appellant-husband and respondent-wife was solemnized
on July 6, 1993 and a son was born out of the wedlock, but he died. In the
meantime, relations between them became strained and respondent-wife filed
a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on
G the gr.ound of desertion and rruelty. The Trial Court went on to enter into
merits of the matter and held that the husband neither treated the wife with /
of .
cruelty nor deserted her. Therefore, the wife was not entitled to a decree of
divorce. Aggrieved thereby, the wife preferred an appeal before the High
Court. The High Court, in order to bring out reconciliation between the parties,

H 496
-{

JAGRAJ SINGH v. BIRPAL KAUR 497
i I directed both the parties to remain present in person on the date of hearing. A
The Power of Attorney of the appellant-husband stated that he would positively
remain present in Court on the next date of hearing, he however did not appear
even on that day and the case was adjourned again and again. On May 4, 2006,
the High Court directed that non-bailable warrant be issued to the respondent-
husband. Hence, the present appeal filed by the husband.
B
Appellant-husband contended that the High Court had no jurisdiction
to issue direction to him to remain personally present in the Court and non-
Y bailable warrant for non-appearance of parties under the Act could not have
been issued. By doing so, the Court had exceeded its power, authority and
jurisdiction; that the personal appearance of the party to the proceeding is C
not mandatory, and at the most the Court may proceed to consider the matter
ex parte.

Respondent-wife submitted that the order is interim in nature which
does not call for interference by this Court in the exercise of discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution; and that the Court has D
authority to direct personal presence of the parties and no objection can be
.->: raised if such direction is issued.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. Bald assertion of the appellant-husband that no Court of law E
can direct a party to remain personally present cannot be accepted. Apart from
the matters under the Hindu Marriage Act, even in civil matters also, a Court
of law may order either the plaintiff or the defendant to remain personally
present in Court. Rule 1 of Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
allows appearance of party in person or through his recognized agent or by
... T an advocate. Proviso to the said rule however, declares that any such F
appearance shat~ if the Court so directs, be made by the party in person. In
appropriate cases, a Civil Court may direct a party to the suit-plaintiff or
defendant, to appear in person. (Para 11] (501-B, F, G, H]

2.1. Approach of a Court of law in matrimonial matters is much more G
constructive, affirmative and productive rather than abstract, theoretical or
doctrinaire. Matrimonial matters must be considered by courts with human
i:ngle and sensitivity. Delicate issues affecting conjugal relations have to be
handled carefully and legal provisions should be construed and interpreted
without being oblivious or unmindful of human weaknesses. Probably, this
aspect has been kept in view by the Legislature in enacting sub-section (2) of H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A Section 23 of the Act by requiring a Court to make all efforts to bring about
reconciliation between the parties. [Para 16) )503-H; 504-A-BJ r 1

Saro) Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha, [1985) 1 SCR 303: )1984) 4
SCC 90 and R. V.SL. Annapurna v. R. Saikumar, [1981 J Supp SCC 71, relied
on.
B
2~2. A Court is expected, nay, bound, to make all attempts and endeavours
of reconciliation. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 is a salutary provision
exhibiting the intention of Parliament requiring the Court 'in the first
instance' to make every endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between
the parties. If in the light of the intention and paramount consideration of the
C Legislature in enacting such provision, an order is passed by a Matrimonial
Court asking a party to the proceeding (husband or wife) to remain personally
present, it cannot successfully be contended that the Court has no such power
and in case a party to a proceeding does not remain present, at the most, the
Court can proceed to decide the case ex parte against him/her. Upholding of
D such argument would virtually make the benevolent provision nugatory,
ineffective and unworkable, defeating the laudable object of reconciliation in
matrimonial disput?.s. The contention of the appellant, therefore, cannot be
upheld. [Para 231 (506-C, D, El

Jivubai v. Ningappa, AIR (1963) Mys 3; Raghunath v. Urmila Devi, AIR
E (1973) Allahabad 203; Jaswinder Kaur v. Ku/want Singh, AIR (1980) P&H
220; Smt. Manju Singh v. Ajay Bir Singh, AIR (1986) Delhi 420 and Sushma
Kumari v. Om Prakash, AIR (1993) Patna 156, referred to.

3.1. No effort whatsoever had been made by the trial Court as required
by sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act. [Para 241 [506-GJ
F
3.2. It is settled law that once the Court holds that it has no jurisdiction T A

in the matter, it should not consider the merits of the matter. In the present
case, though the issue as to jurisdiction of the Court was decided against the
wife, without following the procedure under Section 23(2) of the Act, the Court
dismissed the petition on merits which could not have been done. [Para 24]
G .[506-H; 507-AJ
4.1. Considering the grievance and apprehension on the part of the
husband, this Court, while issuing notice on May 29, 2006 granted interim
stay against issuance of non-bailable warrant and the said interim relief
continues even today. At the time of hearing of the appeal, counsel for the
H appellant-husband was asked that if apprehension of the husband is that he
JAGRAJ SINGH v. BIRPAL KAUR [THAKKER, J.] 499
would be arrested on coming to India, interim relief granted earlier can be A
continued so as to enable him to remain personally present in Court and to
comply with the order. The counsel, however, insisted that no snch order could
have been passed by the Court. Since the Court has jurisdiction to pass such
order, it cannot be said that the direction issued by the High Court is without
authority of law. [Para 26) (507-F, G, HI
B
4.2. This Court is exercising discretionary and equitable jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution. If, in spite of protection granted by
y this Court, the husband is bent upon to disobey and flout the order passed by
the Court which is in consonance with Section 23(2) of the Act, he cannot
claim as of right the equitable relief from this Court. [Para 27) (508-A-B) C
! ..

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 711 of2007.

From the interim Order dated 4.5.2006 of the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh, in F.A.O. No. l 3-M/2005.

H.S. Phoolka, Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, Sanjay Katya! and T.P. Mishra D
for the Appellant.

Ujjal Singh, J.P. Singh and R.C. Kaushik for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was deliivered by
E
C.K. THAKKER, J. I. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal by special leave has been filed by the appellant-
husband against the interim order dated May 04, 2006 passed by the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. No. 13-M of2005 issuing F
non-bailable warrant against him.

3. Brief facts of the case are that marriage of.the appellant and respondent
was solemnized on July 6, 1993 at Barnala, District Sangrur, Punjab and from
the said wedlock, a son was born to them on April 9, 1994, but he died in
September, 1995. It is the case of the husband that after marriage, he went to G
Brunei, Darusslame in January, 1994. Respondent-wife also joined him after
some days. There she appeared in an interview for a job of Pharmacist. But
she was not selected for the said job and returned to the matrimonial home
on February 15, 1994 and then came back to India and lived with her parents.
In the meantime, relations between them became strained and on December
23, 2002, respondent-wife filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground r ~
of desertion and cruelty in the Court of District Judge, Faridkot, Punjab.
Appellant, through his Special Power of Attorney, filed written statement
contending inter alia that Faridkot Court had no territorial jurisdiction to hear
and try the petition. He also denied the allegations of cruelty and desertion.
B It was also pleaded that the wife obtained degree of MBBS from Russia at
the expenses of the appellant-husband and he and his parents had spent an
amount of Rs. ten lakh on the said MBBS course.

4. The District Judge heard the matter. On the question of jurisdiction, .,;
the Court observed that since the wife was living with her parents in Barnala
C and not at village Saline, within the jurisdiction of District Faridkot, the
District Judge at Sangrur had jurisdiction to try the petition and the District
Judge, Faridkot had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the petition. The
Court, however, did not stop there and went on to enter into merits of the
matter. Co11sidering the evidence on record, the learned Judge held that the
husband neither treated the wife with cruelty nor deserted her. He, therefore,
D held that the wife was not entitled to a decree of divorce.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the wife preferred an appeal vide FAO No. 13-M
of 2005 before the High Court. The High Court issued notice to the husband
through the Special Power of Attorney. In order to bring out reconciliation
between the parties, the High Court directed both the parties to remain
E present in person on November 29, 2005. On November 29, 2005, the Power
of Attorney of the husband-appellant herein stated that the husband would
positively remain present in Court on the next date of hearing, i.e. February
2, 2006. The husband, however, did not appear on that day and the case was
adjourned to February 21, 2006 and again to May 4, 2006. On May 4, 2006,
p the High Court passed the following order- 1 A.

"It appears that despite several opportunities granted. after
29.11.2005 to the parties to remain present in the Court, the respondent-
husband has not cared to obey the order. Let non bailable warrants
be issued to the respondent-husband for 30.5.2006 to be executed
G through the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India and the
Office of Indian Consulate General/Ambassador in Italy on the address
mentioned in the order dated 13.1.2005 namely; "Via Localite Pizzi ~·

Bornazzo I, 0 I020 VT, Italy''.

6. Hence, the present appeal by special leave.
H

I I '!
JAGRAJ SINGH v. BIRPAL KAUR [THAKKER. J.] 501
( 1 7. On May 29, 2006, this Court, while issuing notice, granted interim A
stay of the order of the High Court issuing non-bailable warrant against the
husband.

8. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before us that B
the High Court had no jurisdiction to issue direction to the husband to remain
personally present in the court and non-bailable warrant for non-appearance
of parties under the Act could not have been issued. By doing so, the Court
had exceeded its power, authority and jurisdiction. He further submitted that
the personal appearance of the party to the proceeding is not mandatory, and C
at the most the Court may proceed to consider the matter ex parte. He,
therefore, submitted that the order passed by the High Court deserves to be
set aside by directing the Court to decide the matter in accordance with law.

I0. The learned counsel for the wife, on the other hand, submitted that
the order is interim in nature which does not call for interference by this Court D
in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
He further submitted that the Court has authority to direct personal presence
of the parties and no objection can be raised if such direction is issued. It
cannot be termed to be an order without jurisdietion.

I I. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions E
of the learned counsel. We must admit that we are unable to accept bald
assertion of the counsel for the appellant that no Court of law can direct a
party to remain personally present. Apart from the matters under the Act i.e.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, even in civil matters also, a Court of law may order

.,. '
..
either the plaintiff or the defendant to remain personally present in Court. For
instance, Rule 1 of Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('Code' for F
short) states that a party may appear in Court either in person or by his
recognized agent or by a pleader on his behalf. The proviso to the said rule,
however, declares that any such appearance shall, if the Court so directs, be
made by the party in person. Likewise, Rule 12 of Order IX provides that
where a plaintiff or defendant, who was ordered to appear in person, does not G
appear in person, or show sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the Court for
) failing so to appear, he shall be subject to all the provisions of the said Order
applicable to plaintiffs and defendants respectively who fails to appear. It is
thus clear that in appropriate cases, a Civil Court may direct a party to the

- suit plaintiff or defendant, to appear in person.
H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 2 S.C.R.

A 12. Special provisions have been made in the Code by the Code of Civil
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, in respect of suits relating to matters
concerning the family in Order XXXII-A. Rule 3 of the said Order requires the
Court to make efforts for settlement of family disputes. The said rule reads
thus:

B 3. D~ty of Court to make efforts for settlement. ---{ 1) In every suit or
proceedings to which this Order applies, an endeavour shall be made
by .the Court in the first instance, where it is possible to do so
consistent with the nature and circumstances of the case, to assist the
parties in arriving at a settlement in respect of the subject-matter of
the suit.
c
(2) If, in any such suit of proceeding, at any stage it appears to the
Court that there is a reasonable possibility of a settlement between
the parties, the Court may adjourn the proceeding for such period as
it thinks fit to enable attempts to be made to effect such a settlement.
--
D (3) '.rhe power conferred by sub-rule (2) shall be in addition to, and
not in derogation of, any other power of the Court to adjourn the
proceedings.

13. The Act (Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) is a special Act dealing with
E the provisions relating to marriages, restitution of conjugal rights and judicial·
separation as also nullity of marriage and divorce. Chapter V (Sections 19 to
28A) deals with jurisdiction and procedure of Court in petitions for restitution
of conjugal rights, judicial separation or divorce. Sub-section (I) of Section
23 expressly states that where a petition for divorce is filed under Section 13
of the Act on certain grounds, before proceeding to grant any relief, the
F Court, 'in the first instance', should make an endeavour to bring about
reconciliation between the parties.

14. Sub-sections (2) and (3) are material which may be reproduced:

(2) Before proceeding to grant any relief under this Act, it shall be the
G duty of the court in the first instance, in every case where it is
possible so to do consistently with the nature and circumstances of
the case, to make every endeavour to bring about a reconciliation
between the parties:

-
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to any
H
--1

JAGRAJ SINGH v. BIRPAL KAUR [THAKKER, J.] 503
proceeding wherein relief is sought on any of the grounds specified A
~ 1 in clause (ii), clause (iii), clause (iv), clause (v), clause (vi) or clause
(vii) of sub-section '(l) of section 13.

(3) For the purpose of aiding the court in bringing about such
reconciliation, the court may, if the parties so desire or if the court
thinks it just and proper so to do, adjourn the proceedings for a B
reasonable period not exceeding fifteen days and refer the matter to
any person named by the parties in this behalf or to any person
nominated by the court if the parties fail to name any person, with
.• -\ directions to report to the court as to whether reconciliation can be
and has been, effected and the court shall in disposing of the
proceeding have due regard to the report.
c
15 As observed by this Court in Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar
Chadha, (1985] l SCR 303: (1984] 4 SCC 90, conjugal rights are not merely
creature of statute but inherent in the very institution of marriage. In R. V.S.L.
Annapurna v. R. Saikumar, [1981] Supp SCC 71, there were matrimonial
D
problems between the husband and the wife. The Court observed that the two
young persons had led to more than one litigation. The Court felt that such
--" a case should not be driven to a 'bitter legal finish'. On the contrary, every
possible effort must be made so as to restore the conjugal home and bring
back harmony between the husband and the wife. The Court appreciated the
efforts made by learned counsel for both the sides and after some amount of E
discussion, persuasion and suggestion, the husband and wife agreed to live
together in a separate house. The Court stated that they would live together
for one month jointly on a trial basis and parents or grant parents of both
the spouses would not, for the time being, visit them. The Court stated; "Not

.... ,
.
that we are suggesting that parents or grandparents should not under any
circumstance visit their children or grandchildren, but we are making an
experiment in creating mutual confidence and in that endeavour even possible
F

irritations and misapprehensions should not be allowed to vitiate the
atmosphere. Solely on that basis and without casting any reflection on any
person, we have made the suggestion, which is acceptable to both sides.
Therefore, within this provisional period of one month the husband and wife G
will live together, hopefully happily without their parents or grandparents
) visiting them during this spell''. (emphasis supplied)

16. The above decisions of this Court make it more than clear that the
approach of a Court oflaw in matrimonial matters is much more constructive,

- H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 2 S.C.R.

A affirmative and productive rather than abstract, theoretical or doctrinaire.
Matrimonial matters must be considered by courts with human angle and
sensitivity. Delicate issues affecting conjugal relations have to be handled
carefully and :legal provisions should be construed and interpreted without
being oblivious or unmindful of human weaknesses. Probably, this aspect has
B been kept in view by the Legislature in enacting sub-section (2) of Section
23 of the AC! by requiring a court to make all efforts to bring about
reconciliation. between the parties.

17. Though there is no direct decision of this Court on interpretation
of Section 23(2) of the Act, various High Courts have interpreted the said
C provision.

Before more than four decades, in Jivubai v. 'Ningappa, AIR 1963 Mys
3, the High Court of Mysore stated; "There can be no doubt that a duty is
laid on the Court to make every endeavour to bring about a reconciliation
between the parties whenever the nature and the circumstances of the case
D permit it to do so". Failure of the trial Court to make such effort does not mean
that appellate Court at a later stage should not undertake such exercise. "The
intention of the provision undoubtedly is to render all possible assistance in
the maintenance of the marital bond and if at any stage of the case the
circumstances are propitious for reconciliation it will be the Court's duty to
make use of such circumstances irrespective of the stage". If no endeavour
E had been made by the Court, it wilf undoubtedly be a serious omission.

I8. In Chhote Lal v. Kam/a Devi and Ors., AIR (1967) Patna 269, the
High Court of.Patna held that sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act enjoins
upon the Court a duty to make a sincere effort at reconciliation before
F proceeding to deal with the case in the usual course. It was observed that
in order that the requirement of making 'every endeavour' is fulfilled, it is at \ "
least requisite that the court should have a first hand version. Such first hand
version, obviously, can be had if the parties are present before the Court. In
such a situation, the Court would be in a position to appreciate what rea:Iy
had led to the estrangement between the husband and wife.
G
The Court stated:

"A perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act leaves no room
for doubt that even where the estrangement between the parties to the
. '
-
marriage might seem to be acute, it is the duty of the court to make
H
JAGRAJ SINGH v. BIRPAL KAUR [THAKKER, J.] 505
every endeavour to bring the parties to reconciliation. Of course, the A
court cannot help, if in spite of its endeavour no reconciliation can
be brought about, but every endeavour in that direction has got to
be made in cases of this nature".

(emphasis supplied)
B
19. In Raghunath v. Urmila Devi, AIR (1973) Allahabad 203, construing
Section 23(2) of the Act, the Court held that the effort of reconciliation is to
be made by the Court right from the start of the case and not only after the
. • i'r-- closure of final hearing of the matter and before the Court proceeds to grant
relief under the Act. It was also observed that the Court should not give up C
the effort for reconciliation merely on the ground that there is no chance for
reconciliation. It was held that since the matter is very much personal to the
parties, their appearance in person before the Court is all the more essential
while the Court proceeds to bring about reconciliation between them. It is the
duty of the Court to make sincere endeavour at reconciliation. In that case,_
the Court ordered the parties to remain personally present. On the adjourned D
day, however, counsel for the wife stated that there was no possibility for
reconciliation whereupon the Court orderer! that the attendance of wife would
not be necessary and recalled the previous order.

20. Setting aside the order, the High Court observed:
E
"This was clearly not in consonance with the provisions of sub-
section (2) of Section 23 of the aforesaid Act. The Court below did
not direct the opposite party No. I to appear in person and state about
that fact nor did it ask for her personal affidavit. In my view, the
requirements of the law were not complied with and the Court below F
failed to perform its duty laid down in the aforesaid provision of the
Act". (emphasis supplied)

20. In Jaswinder Kaur v. Ku/want Singh, AIR ( 1980) P&H 220, a similar
view was taken by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. It was observed
that an attempt for reconciliation between the parties should be made in the G
beginning and not at the end. It was indicated that the matrimonial Court,
beside being a Court of law, has to decide matters and grant relief thereon
) in a very sensitive field. It is for the Court to choose, with or without the
suggestion of the counsel or the parties, the time at which recondliation,

- wherever possible and whenever consistently with the nature and H
circumstances of the case, should be attempted.
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 2 S.C.R.
;
A 21. In ,Smt. Manju Singh v. Ajay Bir Singh, AIR ( 1986) Delhi 420, it was ~ t
observed that the Court should try first for reconciliation. If an endeavour of
reconciliation is not made, the order would be illegal.

22. In Sushma Kumari v. Om Prakash, AIR (1993) Patna 156, it was held
that the duty is cast on the Court to take steps for reconciliation between the
B parties, though non-observance of endeavour for reconciliation would not
make the order of the Court without jurisdiction. But in that case the defect
can be rectified by the appellate Court.

23. From the above case-law, in our judgment, it is clear that a Court is
C expected, nay, bound, to make all attempts and endeavours of reconciliation.
To us, sub-section (2) of Section 23 is a salutary provision exhibiting the
intention of Parliament requiring the Court 'in the first instance' to make every
endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties. If in the light
of the above intention and paramount consideration of the Legislature in
D enacting su.ch provision, an order is passe~ '1y a Matrimonial Court asking
a party to the proceeding (husband or wife) to remain personally present, it
cannot succe.ssfully be contended that the Court has no such power and in
case a party to a proceeding does not remain present, at the most, the Court
can proceed to decide the case ex parte against him/her. Upholding of such
argument would virtually make the benevolent provision nugatory, ineffective
E and unworkable, defeating the laudable object of reconciliation in matrimonial
disputes. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore,
cannot be upheld.

24. There is another aspect also which is relevant and material. As
already observed by us earlier, the petition for divorce was filed by the wife
F in the Court of District Judge, Faridkot. The petition was contested by the t A
husband raising several contentions including the contention as to jurisdiction
of Faridkot Court to entertain, deal with and decide the matter. Though the
Court upheld the contention and ruled that it had no jurisdiction, it went into
merits of the matter. No effort whatsoever had been made by the Court as
G required by sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act and the Court held that
the record did not show that the husband either treated the wife with cruelty
or deserted her and accordingly the petition was dismissed on merits observing
that the wife was not entitled to a decree for divorce. It is settled law that
once the Cou'rt holds that it has no jurisdiction in the matter, it should not
H consider the 1nerits of the matter. Jn the present case, though the issue as to
JAGRAJ SINGH v. BIRPAL KAUR [THAKKER, J.] 507

. ' \
jurisdiction of the Court was decided against the wife, without following the
procedure under Section 23(2) of the Act, the Court dismissed the petition on
A

merits which could not have been done.

25. There is yet one more reason which is important. When the appeal
was filed in the High Court by the aggrieved wife, the Court entertained it.
Since the husband was not in India, notice was issued to him at his address B
as given in the Special Power of Attorney at !tali. The said order was passed
on January 13, 2005. On July 28, 2005, the Court noted that the notice had
not come back served or unserved and hence, fresh notice was issued by
-~ making it returnable on November 22, 2005. On the returnable date, i.e.
November 22, 2005, the wife was present in the Court. The Power of Attorney C
and brother of husband was also present in Court in person. The Court noted
that the Power of Attorney contacted the respondent who is residing in Italy
to find out the date on which he can remain present in the Court in person
in the month of December 2005. The Power of Attorney stated that he would
be able to give a final date within one week. Accordingly, the case was
differed for one week. On November 29, 2005, the Power of Attorney made D
a statement before the Court that the husband "shall positively be present
in person on 2.2.2006". The case was, therefore, adjourned to February 2,
2006. On that day, however, the husband did not appear. Again, by an order
dated April 17, 2004, the parties were directed to be present in Court on May
4, 2006. Since on that date also, the husband did not remain present whereas E
the wife attended the Court, the impugned order directing issuance of non-
bailable warrant was passed.

26. The learned counsel for the husband contended before this Court
that the sole intention of the wife was to get him arrested and it was not
possible for the husband to come to India. Considering the grievance and F
apprehension on the part of the husband, this Court, while issuing notice on
May 29, 2006 granted interim stay against issuance of non-bailable warrant
. and the said interim relief continues even today. At the time of hearing of the
appeal, we have asked the learned counsel for the appellant-husband that if
the apprehension of the husband is that he would be arrested on coming to
India, interim relief granted earlier and operative can be continued so as to G
enable him to remain personally present in Court and to comply with the order.
The learned counsel, however, insisted that no such order could have been
passed by the Court. Since we are of the view that the Court has jurisdiction
to pass such order, it cannot be said that the direction issued by the High
Court is without authority of law. H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A 27. Again, we are exercising discretionary and equitable jurisdiction
;- I .
under Article 136 of the Constitution. If, in spite of protection granted by this
Court, the husband is bent upon to disobey and flout the order passed by
the Court which is in consonance with Section 23(2) of the Act, he cannot
claim as of right the equitable relief from this Court.

B 28. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, no case has been made
out by the appellant. The order passed by the High Court deserves no
interference ~s we see no legal infirmity therein. The appeal deserves to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with costs.
) ,...,
C S.K.S. Appeal dismissed. r
·..-