Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by a husband challenging a family court’s decision to refuse his divorce petition on jurisdictional grounds.

Court held that a divorce petition cannot be filed at a marriage reception venue, as jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is strictly governed by Section 19 of the Act.

The provision states that a divorce petition must be filed in the district court where: (i) the marriage was solemnized, or (ii) the respondent currently resides, or (iii) the couple last lived together, or (iiia) the wife resides if she is the petitioner, or (iv) the petitioner resides if the respondent is either outside India’s jurisdiction or missing for at least seven years.

Accordingly, the division bench of Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Donadi Ramesh reaffirmed that jurisdiction cannot be conferred based on post-wedding celebrations.

Case arose after the man’s divorce petition was rejected by the Family Court in Prayagraj on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction. The man contended that while his marriage was solemnized in Pratapgarh, a reception was hosted in Prayagraj, which he claimed should grant jurisdiction to the Prayagraj court. However, the family court dismissed his plea, stating that neither the marriage nor the couple’s last residence as husband and wife was in Prayagraj.

The high court upheld that family court's decision stating hosting a reception in a particular location does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements under Section 19 of the Act.

Therefore, while holding that the appeal lacked merit, the high court dismissed it. However, it made it clear that dismissal of the appeal will not preclude the appellant from approaching the competent Court for necessary relief.

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by a husband challenging a family court’s decision to refuse his divorce petition on jurisdictional grounds.

Court held that a divorce petition cannot be filed at a marriage reception venue, as jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is strictly governed by Section 19 of the Act.

The provision states that a divorce petition must be filed in the district court where: (i) the marriage was solemnized, or (ii) the respondent currently resides, or (iii) the couple last lived together, or (iiia) the wife resides if she is the petitioner, or (iv) the petitioner resides if the respondent is either outside India’s jurisdiction or missing for at least seven years.

Accordingly, the division bench of Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Donadi Ramesh reaffirmed that jurisdiction cannot be conferred based on post-wedding celebrations.

The case arose after the man’s divorce petition was rejected by the Family Court in Prayagraj on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction. The man contended that while his marriage was solemnized in Pratapgarh, a reception was hosted in Prayagraj, which he claimed should grant jurisdiction to the Prayagraj court. However, the family court dismissed his plea, stating that neither the marriage nor the couple’s last residence as husband and wife was in Prayagraj.

The high court upheld the family court's decision stating hosting a reception in a particular location does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements under Section 19 of the Act.

Accordingly, while holding that the appeal lacked merit, the high court dismissed it. However, it made it clear that dismissal of the appeal will not preclude the appellant from approaching the competent Court for necessary relief.

Case Title: Anup Singh Vs. Smt. Jyoti Chandrabhan Singh