The main legal point established in the judgment is the extra-territorial operation of the Hindu Marriage Act, emphasizing its applicability to Hindus domiciled in India even if they reside outside India, and the right of the wife to initiate proceedings before the local District Court where she is actually residing.

Sneh Prashar, J.

Assailing the judgment dated 17.03.2015 vide which HMA case No.22 of 11.03.2014 filed by appellant-wife Mandeep Kaur against respondent -husband Dharam Lingam under Section 13B-1(ia)(1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') for dissolution of their marriage was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, the appellant -wife preferred the instant appeal.

2. As indicated in the impugned judgment by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, on notice of the petition, the respondent-husband had appeared through counsel but when the case was fixed for filing written statement, he absented from hearing and was proceeded against ex-parte.

3. During the instant appeal proceedings, notice of motion was issued to the respondent. At the first instance, notice issued was received back unserved with the report "unclaimed". Subsequently, the notice sent through registered cover was not received back served or otherwise. Since more than 30 days had passed after the registered notice was issued, it is assumed that the registered AD had reached its destination.

4. Otherwise also as already observed above, the respondent was ex-parte when the impugned judgment was passed by learned trial Court on 17.3.2015. The petition was dismissed on the short ground that the Act would not extend in the case of respondent-husband since he is a citizen of Canada.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have scrutinised the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court.

6. The operating paragraph in the judgment of learned trial Court leading to dismissal of the petition is reproduced hereunder:-

"It is the case of petitioner that respondent is citizen of Canada. As per Section-1 sub -section-2 of The Hindu Marriage Act, the Act extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir and applies also to Hindus domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who are outside the said territories. As stated above, respondent is citizen of Canada. There is nothing on record which would show that respondent comes within meaning of Hindu domiciled in India, having place of abode in India, even if he resides outside India. Thus, Hindu Marriage Act would not extend in case of respondent."

7. The contentious issues that necessitate examination are:

(i) extent and applicability of the Act as per Section 1(2) of the Act;

(ii) the court to which a petition under the Act can be presented.

8. Section 1(2) of the Act provides for extent of the Act and the same reads as follows:-

"1. Short title and extent.-

(1) xxx xxx xx

(2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and applies also to Hindus domiciles in the territories to which this Act extends who are outside the said territories."

9. From a plain reading of Section 1(2) of the Act, it is evident that the Act extends to the Hindus of the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kahmir and also applies to Hindus domiciled in India, who are outside the said territories. In short, the Act, in our considered opinion, will apply to Hindus domiciled in India even if they reside outside India.

10. In Shashi Leekha v. Sheila Shashi Leekha AIR 2013 Bom 86, a Division Bench of Bombay High Court held as under:-

"12. Section 1(2) predicates that the Act extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and applies also to Hindus domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends, who are outside the said territories."

11. In Sondur Gopal v. Sondur Rajini (2013)7 SCC 426, the parties were originally citizens of India but acquired citizenship of Sweden and as citizens of Sweden claimed domicile in Australia. The plea of the appellant-husband that he was a Swedish citizen domiciled in Australia, hence, Australian Courts shall have jurisdiction, was rejected by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Examining the extent and applicability of the Act, it was observed that a plain reading of Section 1(2) of the Act, w