The Court affirmed a wife's right to file for divorce based on her permanent domicile, regardless of temporary residency outside India.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on: 19.02.2026 Pronounced on:27.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI CRP. No.732 of 2026 S.K.Ramya @

Ramya Senguttuvan Kavitha Petitioner(s)

Vs N.Ashwin Kumar Respondent(s)

PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order of returns passed in O.P.SR. No.7428 of 2025 (Online Filing Through Litigation Login) on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai dated 30.12.2025 and 21.01.2026 respectively and direct the Principal Family Court to register the petition and assign the petition main number on the file and thereby allow the Civil Revision Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.C.S.Raja Chockalingam

ORDER

The wife in matrimonial proceedings, who approached the Family Court, Chennai in OP.SR.No.7428 of 2025, is the revision petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Principal Family Court, returning her divorce petition on the ground of jurisdiction.

2. I have heard Mr.T.C.S.Raja Chockalingam, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also gone through the records. In view of the fact that the OP has not yet been taken on file, I am inclined to dispense with notice to the respondent.

3. Mr.T.C.S.Raja Chockalingam, learned counsel for the petitioner/wife, would state that the petitioner filed the O.P. invoking Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of the marriage with the respondent. The learned counsel would fairly bring to my notice that the petitioner is presently residing in Sydney, Australia, as also the respondent /husband. However, at the time of the presentation of the O.P., the petitioner was residing within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Chennai and the local address has also been furnished in the short and long cause title as well.

4. Mr. Raja Chockalingam, learned counsel for the petitioner, would state that the mere fact that the petitioner was temporarily residing in Sydney, would not prevent her from moving the Family Court at Chennai, when her domicile is very much in Chennai, and further in view of the mandate of Section 19 as amended by The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 2003, (Act 50 of 2003) dated 23.12.2003, wherever the petitioner is the wife, a choice is given to the petitioner to initiate proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act at the place of her residence.

5. Mr. Raja Chockalingam, learned counsel would further rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sondur Gopal vs. Sondur Rajini reported in, (2013) 7 SCC 426 and the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in R.Sridharan vs. The Presiding Officer, Principal Family Court, Chennai and another, reported in 2010 (4) CTC 822 and the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Karan Goel vs. Kanika Goel reported in, I (2021) DMC 193 Del.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also gone through the records including the impugned order of return passed by the Principal Family Court.

7. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the petitioner has presented the OP.SR by way of online filing, through litigant login, which was then permissible before the Family Court to institute proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. In fact, the petition has been signed by the petitioner herself and she was not represented even by any power of attorney at that stage. The petitioner has clearly stated in the long cause title that her permanent address is No. 7, Lotus Apartment, United India Colony, 2^nd Street Circular Park, Kodamba