The main legal point established is that the jurisdiction clause of the Hindu Marriage Act does not apply when a party seeks dissolution of marriage under a customary law that predates the Act, and the court's matrimonial jurisdiction is determined by the residence of the parties.

Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Marumakathayam Law - The court held that the Marumakathayam Law, as a customary law, gave the appellant the right to seek dissolution of marriage, and therefore, the jurisdiction clause of the Hindu Marriage Act did not apply to the suit. The court concluded that it had matrimonial jurisdiction based on the residence of the parties.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, wife, sought dissolution of marriage based on desertion, legal cruelty, and incompatibility of temperament, claiming that the parties were governed by the Marumakathayam Law and resided within the jurisdiction of the court. The lower court held that it had no jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act and ordered the suit to be transferred.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Hindu Marriage Act's jurisdiction clause did not apply to the suit as the appellant was seeking dissolution under the Marumakathayam Law, a customary law that predated the Act. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction based on the residence of the parties and allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court's order.
Issues: Jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act, applicability of Marumakathayam Law, and residence of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant, being governed by the Marumakathayam Law, was not asserting a right conferred by the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore, the Act's jurisdiction clause did not apply. The court also emphasized that the residence of the parties determined the court's matrimonial jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the lower court's order was set aside, and the suit was directed to be heard on merits with costs in the cause.

Judgment -

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for dissolution of a marriage. The appellant is the wife and the respondent is the husband and the appellants allegation in the plaint is that she and her husband are Nairs of Travancore and are governed by the Marumakathayam Law as modified by the Nair Act of Travancore and that is the personal law of the parties. The ground for dissolution of marriage is desertion, legal cruelty and incompatibility of temperament, and in the jurisdiction clause the appellant avers that the parties are residing within the jurisdiction of this Court and this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. When the matter came before Mr. Justice Coyajee, he took the view that in view of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, this Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and therefore he ordered that the suit should be transferred to the City Civil Court which according to him was the only forum which could entertain this suit. The learned Judge took this view because in his opinion the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 applied to the parties.

2. Now, undoubtedly, that Act applies to the plaintiff and the defendant because that Act applies to every Hindu. Under Section 19 of that Act the Legislature has provided :

"Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the District Court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction the marriage was solemnized or the husband and wife reside or last resided together. And District Court has been defined as: In any area in which there is a City Civil Court, that Court; and inasmuch as there is a City Civil Court in Bombay, if Section 19 applied, undoubtedly the proper forum for the plaintiffs suit would be the City Civil Court and not the High Court. But Section 19 confers jurisdiction upon the City Civil Court with regard to every petition under the Act. and the contention of Mr. Iyer for the appellant before us is that her suit is not under the Act, she has not come to this Court on a petition for dissolution of marriage which falls under the Act, but she has come for a dissolution of the marriage under the Marumakathayam Law which gives his client a right to have a dissolution of marriage. Section 29 (2) in terms saves customs and special enactments which give a right to a party to obtain dissolution of a Hindu marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act. Therefore, reading Section 29 (2) and Section 13 which sets out the grounds on which divorce can be obtained, the position seems to be this. Where a Hindu had already a right of divorce under his customary law or under any special enactment, that right is saved. But, as is well known, the majority of Hindus living in this country had no right of divorce and that right of divorce was for the first time conferred upon them by this law, and therefore when a Hindu is exercising the new right given to him by this law and seeks dissolution of marriage, he can only apply under Section 13, and when he does apply under Section 13 then the forum for hearing his petition is fixed by Section 19 as the City Civil Court. But the appellant is a Hindu who had a right of divorce before this Act was passed, that right is saved as pointed out under Section 29 (2), and therefore, when she approaches this Court she is not asserting a right conferred upon her by the Act, she is not presenting a petition under the Act, she is not relying on the grounds mentioned in Section 13, but she is asserting a right which she says she has under a customary law or a special enactment which was antecedent to the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, in our opinion, Section 19 has no application to this suit.

3. If Section 19 has no application, then it is clear that this Court has matrimonial jurisdiction, and the matrimonial jurisdiction would depend upon the residence of the parties. There is an averment in para. 20 of the plaint that the parties reside within the jurisdiction of this Court and that a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document