ORDER :- The question for consideration in both these matters is whether the High Court will have jurisdiction to entertain matrimonial matters irrespective of whether the husband and wife reside at Madras or last resided together at Madras or not?

2. As pointed out in Thelma Agnes Kershaw v. Archibald Cyril Kershaw, AIR 1930 Lahore 916, in cases under the Divorce Act, the question of jurisdiction is of paramount importance and does not fall to be determined purely on allocation of the onus of proof. In these cases, it is the duty of the Court, apart from any objection that might have been taken by one or other of the parties, to enquire into and set out in the judgment, facts which show clearly that it possesses jurisdiction to pronounce a decree for dissolution of marriage.

3. Apart from the preamble, the sections relevant in the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (now the Divorce Act) are Sections 3(1), 3(3), 3(4), 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23 and 45. We have also to advert to Clause 35 of the Amended Letters Patent and Ss. 15 and 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We may have occasion to refer to S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Sengottuvelan, J. in Dexter S. Anthony v. J

Click Here to Read the rest of this document