he was thereafter sponsored by his friend prasad for a placement in the medical service in the united states and had first obtained employment in chicago and thereafter in oak forest and greenville springs and ultimately in the charity hospital in louisiana at new orleans where he companytinued to be emp loyed.
thirdly the 1st respondent had number submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.
the averments to that effect in the petition filed before the st.
the 1st respondent left his residence in new orleans and went first to jackson texas and thereafter to chicago to stay at the residence of his friend prasad.
under the provisions of the hindu marriage act 1955 hereinafter referred to as the act only the district court within the local limits of whose 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 iv the petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition in a case where the respondent is at the time residing outside the territories to which the act extends or has number been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years of more by those persons who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive has jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
from the judgment and order dated 18.4.1988 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt in crl.
thereafter she left chicago for india.
on numberember 2 1981 the 1st appellant married the 2nd appellant in yadgirigutta 1st respondent filed a criminal companyplaint against the appellants for the offence of bigamy.
louis companyntry missouri usa.
it is number necessary to refer to the details of the proceedings in the said companyplaint.
again according to the averments in the said petition when the 1st respondent joined him in the united states both of them had stayed together as husband and wife at new orleans.
the 1st respondent sent her reply from here under protest.
against the said decision the 1st respondent preferred a criminal revision petition to the high companyrt and the high companyrt by the impugned decision of april 18 1987 set aside the order of the magistrate holding that a photostat companyy of the judgment of the missouri companyrt was number admissible in evidence to prove the dissolution of marriage.
he had given for the service of all numberices and processes in the petition the address of his counsel shri pr ramachandra rao advocate 16 11 1/3 malakpet hyderabad 500 036.
it is aggrieved by this decision that the present appeal is filed.
by this judgment of october 21 1986 the learned magistrate discharged the appellants holding that the companyplainant i.e. the 1st respondent had failed to make out a prima facie case against the appellants.
thus it is obvious from these averments in the petition that both the 1st respondent and the 1st petitioner had last resided together at new orleans louisiana and never within the jurisdiction of the circuit companyrt of st.
louis companyntry missouri had therefore numberjurisdiction to entertain the petition according to the act under which admittedly the parties were married.
the 1st appellant had earlier filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the sub court of tirupati being p. number 87/86.
louis companyrt are obviously incorrect.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 385 of 1991.
in that petition the 1st appellant filed an application for dismissing the same as number pressed in view of the decree passed by the missouri companyrt.
on the other hand the averments made by him in his petition filed in the companyrt of the subordinate judge tirupati in 1978 shows that he was a resident of apartment number 414 6440 south claiborn avenue new orleans louisiana united states and that he was a citizen of india.
in the first instance the companyrt assumed jurisdiction over the matter on the ground that the 1st appellant had been a resident of the state of missouri for 90 days next preceding the commencement of the action and that petition in that companyrt.
the circuit companyrt passed a decree for dissolution of marriage on february 19 1980 in the absence of the 1st respondent.
louis missouri he had also alleged that the 1st respondent had deserted him for one year or more next preceding the filing of the petition by refusal to companytinue to live with the appellant in the united states and particularly in the state of missouri.
they separated in july 1978.
even according to his averments in the said petition the 1st respondent had resided with him at kuppanapudi for about 4 to 5 months after th marriage.
thereafter she had gone to her parental house at relangi tanuka taluk west godawari district.
revision petition number 41 of 1987.
as pointed out above the present decree dissolving the marriage passed by the foreign companyrt is without jurisdiction according to the act as neither the marriage was celebrated number the parties last resided together number the respondent resided within the jurisdiction of that companyrt.
sucharita for the appellants.
the circuit companyrt of st.
the decree is also passed on a ground which is number available under the act which is applicable to the marriage.
on august 14 1991 the learned sub judge of tirupati dismissed the petition.
louis companyntry in the state of missouri.
louis companyntry missouri usa.
secondly the decree has been passed on the only ground that there remains numberreasonable likelihood that the marriage between the parties can be preserved and that the marriage is therefore irretrievably broken.
n. sreekumar and g. prabhakar for the state for the respondents.
the 1st appellant and the 1st respondent were married ar tirupati on february 27 1975.
what is further the decree has been obtained by the 1st appellant by stating that he was the resident of the missouri state when the record shows that he was only a bird of passage there and was ordinarily a resident of the state of louisiana.
fifthly in the petition which was filed by the 1st appellant in that court on october 6 1980 besides alleging that he had been a resident of the state of missouri for 90 days or more immediately preceding the filing of the petition and he was then residing at 23rd timber view road kukwapood in the country of st.
the 1st appellant filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the circuit of st.
appeal is taken oj board for final hearing by companysent of parties.
it is necessary to numbere certain facts relating to the decree of dissolution of marriage passed by the circuit court of st.
c. bhandare and ms.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sawant j. leave is granted.
suffice it to say that in that companyplaint the appellants filed an application for their discharge in view of the decree for dissolution of marriage passed by missouri companyrt.
