SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Del) 588

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dharmesh Sharma, J.
Abhishek Saxena - Appellant
Versus
Anukriti Srivastava - Respondent
CM(M) 151 of 2024
Decided On : 19-03-2024

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Kriti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Salman Hashmi, Mr. Zeeshan Hashmi, Mr. Himanshu Bidhuri and Ms. Riyal Gulati, Advs. with Petitioner in person.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh and Mr. Hari Om Sharan Singh, Advs., for the Respondent.

IMPORTANT POINT
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.

Headnote:

Article 227 - Territorial Jurisdiction - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 19, Section 20; Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court seeking to set aside an order passed by the Family Court, Patiala House Court, claiming lack of territorial jurisdiction due to the respondent's residence in Bangalore.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found the petition to be misconceived and an attempt to delay the proceedings. The Court dismissed the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC and Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, emphasizing that the issue of territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and facts and cannot be decided in a piecemeal manner.

Issues: The main issue was the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court in a divorce case where the respondent claimed to be a resident of New Delhi while the petitioner alleged her residence in Bangalore.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the court is guided by Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and dismissed the petitioner's attempt to introduce the rigours of Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC to scuttle the proceedings.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- for wasting the time of the Family Court and the Court.

JUDGMENT

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.

1. This judgment shall decide the present petition filed by the petitioner invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:

    "a. Allow the instant petition and set aside the order dated 02.11.2023 passed in CS no. 4 of 2021 by the hon'ble Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Court and pass a judgment based on the admission of plaintiff/ respondent herein made on 14.03.2023 that she is not a resident on Delhi since 28.09.2019, and the trial court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try CS No.4 of 2021,

    b. Any further order in the interest of justice."

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the respondent, who was married to the petitioner as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies on 22.01.2013 at Agra, Uttar Pradesh, has filed a civil suit for declaration to set aside the ex-parte decree of divorce in case No.18 DR1 00137 1B dated 28.06.2018 passed by the First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for Carson City (USA).

3. The respondent filed the suit before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Court Complex, New Delhi [Family Court], claiming that she is a resident of H.No.C-8/7, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The main grievance of the petitioner/husband is that the respondent/ex- wife is a permanent resident of Bangalore and she has been even gainfully employed in Bangalore, and yet the suit has been filed before the Family Court at Patiala House Court, New Delhi, which lacks territorial jurisdiction.

4. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the record, I find that the present petition is grossly misconceived and tantamount to delaying the outcome of the proceedings before the Family Court concerned. The plea of the petitioner was earlier considered by the Family Court vide order dated 06.08.2022 and it was categorically observed that the jurisdiction of the court is not to be guided by Section 19[19. Court to which petition shall be presented.-
Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the district court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction -
(i) the marriage was solemnised, 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
(iiia) in case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition, or
(iv) the petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where the respondent is, at that time, residing outside the territories to which this Act extends, or has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive.] of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but by Section 20[20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises. - Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction -
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally works for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
1* * * * *
2 [Explanation]. - A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in 3 [India] or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.] of the Civil Proced

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top