The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of Indian courts to entertain matrimonial proceedings involving foreign nationals governed by the Hindu Marriage Act is determined by the residence of the wife, and the Act applies to all Hindus domiciled in the territory to which it extends.

K.K. SASIDHARAN, J.

INTRODUCTORY:-

The legality of a matrimonial proceeding initiated by the wife before a family court in India invoking the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act against her Hindu husband having his domicile in New Jersey in the United States of America is the substantial issue raised in this writ appeal.

2. The appeal is directed against the order dated 18 August, 2008 in W.P.No.34838 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the request of the appellant to issue a writ of prohibition to prohibit the first respondent from proceeding with the trial in O.P.No.569 of 2004 was rejected.

.THE FACTS:-

.3. The appellant was an Indian Citizen and on his migration to the United States of America, he was granted US Citizenship. The second respondent was residing adjacent to the residence of the appellant at Madras. Their marriage was solemnized on 17 April, 2002. The marriage was conducted in accordance with the Hindu Rites and custom in the Balaji Temple at New Jersey. The parties were living happily as husband and wife. Subsequently, during the second week of January, 2003 the second respondent came to India for a short visit promising to return after completing her dance program. However all of a sudden, she changed her mind and contrary to the promise made, began to act in films with no idea of returning to States. She also filed divorce petition in O.P.No.569 of 2004 before the Principal Family Court, Chennai on the ground of cruelty.

4. Since the petitioner was residing in United States, he was not aware of the proceedings initiated by the second respondent. Summons was not served on him. However, an ex parte order of divorce was granted on 19 July, 2004. When the appellant came to knowthe said order, he took necessary steps for setting aside the ex parte order. The learned Family Court Judge was pleased to set aside the ex parte order of divorce on 23 September, 2004. The appellant on his appearance filed his counter opposing the plea of divorce.

.5. While the matters stood thus, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P.No.34838 of 2004 for issuance of a writ of prohibition. According to the appellant, the Family Court at Chennai has no jurisdiction to entertain the divorce proceedings, as he is a citizen of United States of America and a permanent resident in the said Country. The Court in India had no jurisdiction to take up the matter involving American citizens, having his domicile in United States of America. Therefore, the Family Court proceedings at Chennai was one without jurisdiction and as such, he prayed for a writ to direct the first respondent to abstain from taking up the matrimonial proceedings.

.COUNTER STATEMENT:-

.6. The second respondent filed a counter opposing the plea made by the appellant. According to the second respondent, the marriage was solemnized in Balaji Temple at Bridge Water, New Jersey in United States of America as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. Therefore the rights and obligations of the parties runs from the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. As per Section 19(iii-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, she was competent to institute proceedings for dissolution ofarriage at the place where she is residing on the date of presentation of the divorce proceedings. Therefore the first respondent has got jurisdiction to decide the lis between the parties. It was her further contention that it was not open to the appellant to raise the question of jurisdiction after submitting to the jurisdiction of the Family Court by filing counter. Accordingly, she prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

.THE JUDGES REASONING:-

7. Thelearned Single Judge opined that the appellant had his domicile of India by origin and the marriage was solemnised as per Hindu vedic rights and customs and as such the parties are governed by their personal law. Therefore the Court in India exercising jurisdiction under Hindu Marriage Act had jurisdiction to entertain the divorce petition irrespective of