IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CR-6274-2025 (O&M)

Reserved on :-09.09.2025 Pronounced on :- 11.09.2025 Nidhi Makhija ....Petitioner VERSUS Arun Dhawan ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate Mr. Shubham Pathania and Mr. Shivansh Sood, Advocates For the petitioners.

Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.S.Rupal, Advocate for the respondent.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner– wife, assailing the order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, in HMA Case No. 667 of 01.08.2023, whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the divorce petition instituted by the respondent–husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter, “the HMA”) was dismissed.

Brief Facts

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 14.10.1995 at Chandigarh, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was duly registered with the Registrar of Marriages, Chandigarh, on 25.10.1995. Immediately after the marriage, both the parties left for Thailand and thereafter shifted to Hong Kong in the year 2001, where they have been permanently residing and have established their matrimonial home. Both spouses possess permanent residency cards of Hong Kong since 2001 and have two daughters, who were born in Hong Kong and also hold permanent residency there. The parties continue to reside abroad. The petitioner and her daughters are residing in Hong Kong, while the respondent is presently residing in Bangkok, Thailand, having also applied for Portuguese residency in 2022.

3. The respondent–husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the HMA at Chandigarh on the ground of cruelty. The petitioner–wife was served at her mother’s residence in Chandigarh when she had come to perform the last rites of her deceased father. The petitioner thereupon filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 15.01.2024, seeking rejection of the divorce petition on the ground of lack of territorial and inherent jurisdiction, contending that since both parties have acquired a domicile of choice abroad, the provisions of the HMA are inapplicable.

4. The learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, vide impugned order dated 13.05.2025, dismissed the said application holding that the Chandigarh Court has jurisdiction as the marriage was solemnized and registered in Chandigarh, and both parties continue to be the Indian citizens holding Indian passports and Aadhaar cards.

Contentions of the Petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner–wife contends that the parties have been permanently residing outside India since 2001, having acquired Hong Kong permanent residency and a domicile of choice abroad. He further contends that under Section 1 of the HMA, the Act applies only to Hindus domiciled in India, and since both parties have abandoned their Indian domicile, the Act is not applicable. The alleged acts of cruelty, matrimonial residence, and marital assets are all located in Hong Kong, and therefore, India is a forum non conveniens. The respondent has sought to mislead the Court by asserting that Hong Kong proceedings were stayed pending Indian litigation, whereas, in fact, the Hong Kong Court has only stayed proceedings till determination of the forum summons in Hong Kong. Service of summons upon the petitioner in India was defective, being in violation of the Hague Convention. The respondent’s filing of divorce proceedings at Chandigarh is a classic case of forum shopping, intended to deprive the petitioner of rights available under Hong Kong law, particularly the principle of equal sharing of matrimonial assets. Reliance has been placed upon Sondur Gopal Vs. Sondur Rajini 2013(7) SCC 426, where it was held that domicile of choice is acquired when a person abandons domicile of origin and establishes permanent residence abroad wi