Jurisdiction for divorce petitions under the Divorce Act is strictly defined by where the marriage was solemnized or where the parties last resided together.

J U D G M E N T

Sophy Thomas, J.

The short question to be answered in the above original petition is whether the Family Court within the territorial jurisdiction of which the husband/wife resides will get jurisdiction to entertain their divorce petition.

2. The petitioner and the 3^rd respondent, who are husband and wife, jointly filed OP No.612 of 2022 under Section 10A of the Divorce Act , for getting divorce on mutual consent. The Family Court dismissed their OP vide Ext.P2 judgment finding that, that court has no jurisdiction to entertain that OP, and returned the petition for presenting before proper court. Challenging that judgment, the petitioner/wife has come up with this original petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. According to the petitioner/wife, a joint petition for divorce under Section 10A of the Divorce Act is maintainable before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, as she is residing within the jurisdiction of that court. She would contend that, as per Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, the place where the defendant resides or cause of action arises will have ordinary original civil jurisdiction. Since the petitioner is residing at Iringole in Ernakulam District, within the territorial limits of Muvattupuzha, the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, will get jurisdiction, and hence Ext.P2 judgment is liable to be set aside.

5. Section 3 (3) of the Divorce Act reads as follows:

“3. Interpretation clause (1) xxx (2) xxx (3) “District Court” means, in the case of any petition under this Act, the Court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose ordinary jurisdiction, or of whose jurisdiction under this Act the marriage was solemnized or, the husband and wife reside or last resided together”.

6. In view of the provisions under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act read with clause (a) to the Explanation, subject to the other provisions of the Act, a Family Court shall have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any District Court or by any subordinate Civil Court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings between the parties to a marriage, for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void) or, as the case may be, annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage.

7. Admittedly, the marriage between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent was solemnized on 24.11.2016 at St.John's Cathedral Church, Thiruvalla in Pathanamthitta District. Thereafter, they lived together as husband and wife in Kuwait. They decided to dissolve their marriage on mutual consent, for which they filed Ext.P1 OP No.612 of 2022 under Section 10A of the Divorce Act . According to them, when the OP was taken up for evidence after six months of its filing, the learned Family Court Judge ordered to return the same to be presented before proper court. Since they have already waited for six months period, they would say that, it was not proper from the part of the Family Court to return that OP.

8. After amendment of the Hindu Marriage Act as well as the Special Marriage Act with effect from 23.12.2003, a petition for divorce under the provisions of those Acts shall be presented, in case the wife is the petitioner, to the District Court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction, she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition. But, there is no such provision in the Divorce Act enabling a wife to approach the District Court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction, she is residing, for getting divorce. It has to be presented only to the Court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose ordinary jurisdiction or of whose jurisdiction under the said Act, the marriage was solemnised or the husband and wife reside or last resided together. So, we find nothing to interfere with Ext.P2 judgment o