A court cannot raise a lack of territorial jurisdiction if it previously accepted jurisdiction without objection from either party, aiming to facilitate resolution of matrimonial disputes.

JUDGMENT

Vipin Sanghi, J. (ORAL)--At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant states that the respondent is also present with him during the virtual hearing in his office. She has also appeared.

2. The present appeal is directed against the orders dated 08.10.2020 and 19.11.2020 passed by Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, learned Single Judge, Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in HMA 1701/2020 jointly preferred by the parties under Section 13-b of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 to seek Divorce by mutual consent. The impugned orders were passed by the Family Court while dealing with the Second Motion Petition under Section 13B(2). The First Motion Petition under Section 13B(1) had been entertained and allowed by the same Family Court vide order dated 13.12.2019.

3. The two impugned orders read as follows:-

"08.10.2020

4. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant/ Ajay Dubey is residing at House No. 610, Top Floor, G.D. Colony, Mayur Vihar, Phase-3, New Delhi-110096, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court concerned. He submits that while moving the First Motion Petition, an error had crept in the para relating to the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has shared the First Motion Petition during the hearing of this appeal. The said relevant para of the First Motion Petition, being paragraph No. 21, reads as follows:

"21. That the marriage was solemnised at Railway colony, Rafiganj, Bihar and lastly cohabited at but petitioners No. 2 is residing at Shweta PG, Rjiva Nagar, Gurgaon presently within the legal limits of the ordinary original Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Thus, the Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try this petition."

6. Learned counsel submits that the Family Court, considering the fact that the appellant is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Family Court, assumed jurisdiction and allowed the First Motion Petition on 13.12.2019. No objection to the territorial jurisdiction was raised - either by the parties, or by the Court.

7. The parties thereafter moved the Second Motion Petition, and the same error crept into the Second Motion Petition, inasmuch, as, with regard to the territorial jurisdiction, it was stated in para 22 as follows:-

"22. That the marriage was solemnised at Railway colony, Rafiganj, Bihar and lastly cohabited at but petitioners No. 2 is resi