JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

A Hindu marriage petition bearing HMA/3412/2022 was instituted by the present appellant before the Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad. In the said petition a decree became espoused for annulling the marital union which was entered into between the present appellant and the respondent, thus in terms of Hindu rites and rituals.

2. The said petition was filed, on 31.08.2022 and after the proceedings on the said petition lasting upto almost 2½ years, an issue became raised by the respondent, in the said petition appertaining to the maintainability of the said petition. The issue relating to the maintainability of the petition became grooved in the factum, that the said petition was misconstituted, on the ground, that it was laid before the Court which neither could assume any valid adjudicatory jurisdiction nor could pass a valid verdict thereons.

3. The said issue was decided in favour of the respondent in the said petition and in the operative paragraph 12 of the impugned order rendered on 17.12.2024, paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, it was declared that the Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Hindu marriage petition. Consequently, the said petition was ordered to be returned to the petitioner for the same becoming filed before the Court concerned, which could assume thereons valid adjudicatory jurisdiction.

“12. In view of the above discussion, this court is of considered opinion that the present Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby ordered to be returned to the petitioner against proper receipt and identification for presentation to the court of competent jurisdiction after retaining the copy of the petition. File be consigned to records after due compliance.”

4. The petitioner in the said petition becomes aggrieved from the said order and is led to challenge the same through hers instituting the instant appeal before this Court.

5. The contest which has emerged inter se the parties at contest does not relate vis-a-vis the assumption of jurisdiction over the Hindu marriage petition, thus within the respective domains of Section 19 (i to iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1955’), provisions whereof become extracted hereinafter. However, the contest as appertains to the adjudicatory competence of the learned trial Judge, rather relates to the applicability vis-a-vis the Hindu marriage petition qua Section 19 (iiia) of the Act of 1955, provisions whereof also becomes extracted hereinafter.

“[19. Court to which petition shall be presented.—Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the District Court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction:

(i) the marriage was solemnized, or

(ii) the respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition, resides, or

(iii) the parties to the marriage last resided together, or

[(iiia) in case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition; or]”

6. The learned counsel for the appellant, has vigorously argued before this Court, that since the requirement as expostulated therein, appertaining to the present appellant, becoming therebys, enjoined to be residing, thus on the date of presentation of the petition, rather at Faridabad, but cannot be interpreted in a rigid manner, so as to now defeat, the elongated spell of the proceedings which became embarked upon the Hindu marriage petition.

7. Moreover, he argues that the coinage “where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition” is required to be imparted a most flexible interpretation, to the extent, that even if at the relevant time, the present appellant was under a study visa, thus residing at Canada. Resultantly therebys the issuance of the study visa, to the present appellant and which became availed by her, wh