|
The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because a husband and wife had earlier resided together within Delhi would not confer territorial jurisdiction on a Delhi Family Court if they subsequently shifted elsewhere and last resided together at another place.
The Court said that under Section 19(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it is the place where the parties last resided together that is relevant for determining territorial jurisdiction in matrimonial proceedings. A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by a woman challenging the return of her divorce petition by a Family Court at Saket for want of territorial jurisdiction. Merely relying upon the parties earlier residence at Sangam Vihar for about one and a half years cannot confer territorial jurisdiction upon the learned Family Court when, admittedly, the parties thereafter shifted to Gurugram and lastly resided together there, the Court observed. The Court noted that the requirement under Section 19(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act is that the parties must have last resided together within the territorial jurisdiction of the court where the matrimonial petition is filed. The appellant-wife had filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty before the Family Court at Saket. However, the Family Court returned the petition under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for presentation before the appropriate court, holding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction. According to the case, the marriage between the parties was solemnised in Gurugram in January 2019. After their marriage, they lived together at Sangam Vihar in Delhi for around one and a half to two years before shifting to Gurugram, where they continued to reside together for more than four years. The wife had contended that their residence at Sangam Vihar was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Delhi courts, arguing that their stay there could not be described as temporary or fleeting. Rejecting the contention, the High Court observed that the statutory language under Section 19(iii) specifically refers to the place where the parties to the marriage last resided together. The parties resided together for around one and a half to two years at Sangam Vihar, Delhi, whereafter they resided together for more than four years at Gurugram, the Court noted, adding that the Family Court had correctly found that the parties last resided together in Gurugram and not in Delhi. The Bench also found a defect in the appeal itself, noting that the wife had filed the appeal against the State of NCT of Delhi while failing to implead her husband, who was the respondent in the original divorce proceedings. We fail to comprehend as to how the present appeal, challenging an order passed in divorce proceedings between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband, could be maintained against the State of NCT of Delhi, particularly when the respondent-husband has not been impleaded as a party to the present appeal, the Court observed. Though it found the appeal not maintainable because of the defect in the array of parties, the Court nevertheless examined the matter on merits. The High Court also rejected the wifes reliance on certain earlier judgments, observing that none of them supported the proposition that any place where the spouses had previously resided together would continue to confer jurisdiction irrespective of their subsequent residence. (ANI)
|
