IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

114 FAO-6180-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: October 30, 2025 Amandeep Kaur .....Appellant Vs.

Kulwinder Singh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Present: Mr. Jagan Nath Bhandari, Advocate for the appellant.

----

RAMESH KUMARI J.

1. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated

01.10.2025 rendered in HMA No.1127 of 2023 vide which, application filed by the respondent-husband under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of divorce petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, filed by the petitioner-wife (appellant herein) has been allowed and the petition has been rejected on the ground that the Court at Sirsa has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the divorce petition.

2. Assailing the findings of the learned Family Court, learned counsel for the appellant contended that although both appellant and respondent are residing in Australia, their marriage was performed in Australia as well as in Sirsa by Sikh ceremonies. Because their marriage was performed in Sirsa, therefore, the Family Court at Sirsa had jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the learned trial Court wrongly allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint.

3. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant conceded that after solemnization of their marriage on 12.10.2015 in Australia and registered on the next date i.e. on 13.10.2015 at Brisbane Court, Australia, the appellant and respondent were living in Australia and thereafter, their marriage was performed as per Sikh rites and ceremonies at Sirsa on 07.07.2019 when they came to India.

4. Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 stipulates the jurisdiction where the petition under Hindu Marriage Act can be presented. This Section reads as under:-

“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 (iv) the petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where the respondent is at that time, residing outside the territories to which this Act extends, or has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive."

5. In the divorce petition, the copy of which is also attached with the present appeal, in Para No.33, it is specifically stated as under:-

“That the marriage with the respondent was solemnized at Haripura according to Sikh rites and ceremonies, hence, this Hon’ble Court has got jurisdiction to try and entertain the present petition.”

In the divorce petition, there are no pleading that the parties to the marriage resided together last in the area of Sirsa, where the divorce petition was filed by the appellant.

6. Thus, the facts reflects that;

a) parties to the petition performed their marriage in Australia on 12.10.2015;

b) the marriage was registered on 13.10.2015 in Australia; c) they resided together as husband and wife in Australia;

d) they performed their marriage according to Sikh rites in Village Haripura on

07.07.2019;

e) they last resided together in Australia and f) both the appellant and the respondent are still residing in Australia.

7. In such a situation, simply because the appellant and the respondent preferred to perform another ceremony of marriage according to Sikh rites at Village Haripura in Sirsa, after about 3 ½ years of their legal and registered marriage in Australia, shall not confer the Court at Sirsa jurisdictio