Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Rajesh S. Patil, J.
Ms. Shikha Lodha - Appellant
Versus
Suketu Shah & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 8829 of 2023
Decided On : 15-04-2024
JURISDICTION - DIVORCE PETITION - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 19 - The court analyzed the jurisdictional provisions under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which outlines where divorce petitions can be filed. The court emphasized that the last residence of the couple was in the U.S.A., not Mumbai, where they had only briefly stayed after marriage. The court interpreted the provisions to mean that jurisdiction lies where the parties last resided together, which was outside India, thus influencing the decision to quash the Family Court's order and allow the wife's application challenging jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner (wife) challenged the Family Court's decision that it had jurisdiction to entertain the husband's divorce petition filed in Mumbai, despite both parties residing and working in the U.S.A. after their marriage in Jodhpur, Rajasthan. The couple separated in the U.S.A. in October 2019, and the husband filed for divorce in Mumbai in August 2020, while the wife filed a divorce petition in the U.S.A. in December 2020.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Family Court in Mumbai did not have jurisdiction to entertain the divorce petition filed by the husband, as the couple's last residence was in the U.S.A. The court concluded that the brief stay in Mumbai after marriage did not establish jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Issues: Whether the Family Court at Mumbai had jurisdiction to entertain the divorce petition filed by the husband under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, given that both parties last resided together in the U.S.A.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act specifies that a divorce petition can be filed in the court where the parties last resided together. Since the couple had lived together in the U.S.A. for several years before their separation, the Family Court in Mumbai lacked jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court quashed the Family Court's order dated 21 April 2022 and allowed the wife's application challenging the jurisdiction of the Family Court in Mumbai.
JUDGMENT
Rajesh S. Patil, J. - RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of both the counsel, taken up for final hearing.
2. This writ petition challenges judgment and order dated 21 April, 2022 passed by the Family Court, Mumbai thereby rejecting the application filed by the petitioner (wife) and holding that the Family Court, Mumbai has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Divorce Petition filed by Husband.
3. The petitioner (wife) and respondent (husband) got married according to Hindu Vedic Rites and Rituals on 7 June, 2015 at Jodhpur, Rajasthan. After their marriage at Jodhpur, there was a wedding reception in a Hotel, at Grant Road, Mumbai on 11 June, 2015.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner (wife) and respondent (husband) stayed in Mumbai in the parents' house of the husband. On 15 June, 2015, the husband left for U.S.A. as even before the marriage he was residing in U.S.A. and working in U.S.A. Soon thereafter, even the wife on 1 August, 2015 left for U.S.A. and started residing with the husband and was also working in U.S.A.
5. Admittedly, on 15 October, 2019 due to matrimonial issues arising out of the wedlock, the wife and the husband separated when they were residing in U.S.A.
6. On 6 August 2020, the husband filed a divorce petition in Family Court at Bandra under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the ground of cruelty. The said petition was a notarized at U.S.A. However, as the Department of the Family Court Mumbai does not permit filing of notarized document from a foreign country, the husband filed a notarized divorce petition through a power of attorney holder (Attorney being his father).
7. Soon thereafter on 10 December, 2020, the wife filed a divorce petition in U.S.A. The said divorce petition is pending for hearing before the U.S.A. Court.
8. The wife subsequently filed application (Ex.16) on 30 August, 2021 challenging the maintainability of the divorce petition filed by the husband before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai. The said application Exhibit - 16 stated that none of the grounds as mentioned under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act were attracted. Therefore, the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai has no jurisdiction to entertain the divorce petition in Mumbai.
9. The husband afterwards filed his reply to the application filed by the petitioner wife.
10. The Family Court, Bandra thereafter heard both the parties and by its judgment and order dated 21 April, 2022 rejected the application Exhibit - 16 filed by the wife. The present writ petition is filed by the wife challenging the impugned order dated 21 April, 2022 filed by the wife.
SUBMISSIONS :
11. Ms. Gayatri Gokhale appearing on behalf of the petitioner (wife) made her submissions :-
(ii) Ms. Gokhale submitted that even before marriage, the husband was staying in U.S.A. and working in U.S.A. from the year 2007. She submitted that both the husband and wife have applied for 'Green Card'. She submitted that both the husband and wife have no intention to come back to India and reside in India.
(iii) Ms. Gokhale submitted that even the divorce petiti
The jurisdiction for filing a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act is determined by the last place of residence of the parties, which, if outside India, precludes Indian courts from having j....
Wedding reception cannot be called as a part of marriage ritual.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court may decline to grant an anti-suit injunction if the proceedings initiated by the respondent in a foreign jurisdiction are not vexati....
Jurisdiction cannot be denied under the Hindu Marriage Act due to prior marriage location in a now foreign territory.
The jurisdiction over matrimonial disputes involving Hindus married in India remains under Indian law, regardless of their foreign citizenship, thus invalidating foreign divorce decrees not adhering ....
The resolution of jurisdictional issues in divorce proceedings is best determined by the trial court based on factual disputes; mere inconvenience does not warrant a transfer.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the issue of territorial jurisdiction in a divorce case is a mixed question of law and facts and cannot be decided in a piecemeal manner.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
