Permanent residence is crucial for jurisdiction in divorce petitions; temporary residence cannot negate this.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Jalore in Civil Misc. Case No.80/2023 (CIS No.80/2023), wherein and whereby, the application filed by the respondent under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been allowed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the pleadings of the appeal clearly show that the appellant has been residing at Jalore after she was driven out from her matrimonial home and at the time of presentation of the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1955’) she had been staying at Jalore with her parents. Thus, the application for divorce had been filed before the learned Family Court, Jalore. The learned counsel further submits that the admissions in pleadings of the reply, particularly, pleadings related to her present temporary status of residence at Ahemdabad was taken as an admission of permanent residence of the appellant at the time of presentation of petition and on the above assumption, the Court came to a wrong conclusion that the appellant was not residing at Jalore when the petition for divorce had been presented.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that if the arguments and reply are read together, it has been clearly established that she had been staying at Ahemdabad since 29.08.2022 and the reply also shows that presently, she is staying at Ahemdabad; as such, the learned Trial Court has rightly considered that at the time of presentation of the petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1955, the appellant was not residing at Jalore, so as to confer the jurisdiction on the Family Court, Jalore. It is also submitted that the learned Judge after considering the pleadings in the reply has rightly determined the jurisdiction and the same requires no interference.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contending that a temporary residence cannot be said to be a residence as required under Section 19 of the Act of 1955 and a permanent residence is a requisite under the said Section, has relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Aditi Sharad Elhance Vs. .... ; First Appeal No.796/2017 (Decided on 28.02.2017) (Division Bench of Gujarat High Court).

(ii) Abhijna U.G. Vs. Vijay Mahadevan ; Tr. P. (C) No.546/2021 (Decided on 09.06.2022) (Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam).

(iii) Meria Joseph Vs. Anoop S. Ponnattu & Ors.; Tr. P. (C) 504/2021 (Decided on 03.01.2022) (Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam).

6. Learned counsel for the respondent to support his case with regard to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Act of 1955 where actual residence of the applicant is required and not the temporary residence, has relied upon the following judgments:

(i) X. Vs. Y. ; FAO- 486/2025 (Decided on 01.05.2025)

(Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court).

(ii) Subhash Vs. Sona ; W.P. No.2266/2016 (Decided on 15.02.2017) (Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court).

(iii) Narayana Bala Bharathi Vs. Vishal Gagan (Delhi); 2013(29) RCR(Civil) 548 (Division Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court).

7. We have gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge.

8. There is no dispute with regard to the averments made in the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce. There is a specific recital to the effect that after the appellant was driven out from her matrimonial home, she took shelter with her parents and she had been staying at Jalore on the date of filing of the present divorce petition.

9. However, in the reply filed by the appellant to the