S.19 HMA | Family Court Can Only Decline Jurisdiction Upon Objection Of Opposite Party Or On Transfer Order By Superior Court: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has held that if Family Courts at two places have concurrent jurisdiction over divorce proceedings, one of them can only decline entertaining such petition on grounds of jurisdiction if specific objection is pressed by the other side or an order transferring the proceedings has been passed by a superior court.Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vests...
The Allahabad High Court has held that if Family Courts at two places have concurrent jurisdiction over divorce proceedings, one of them can only decline entertaining such petition on grounds of jurisdiction if specific objection is pressed by the other side or an order transferring the proceedings has been passed by a superior court.
Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vests the jurisdiction for adjudicating divorce dispute between parties in court which have ordinary civil jurisdiction over the place where the marriage was solemnized, the parties last resided together, the respondent ordinarily resides at the time of presentation of the petition, or where the petitioner usually resides if the other party resides outside India or has not been seen or heard to be alive for the last seven years.
Appellant-husband filed a divorce petition in Chandauli. Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli disposed of the petition, in absence of the parties, on grounds that since the parties were living in Mumbai or near Mumbai fresh divorce petition should be filed in a Court in Mumbai or near Mumbai for the ease of the parties. This order of the Family Court was challenged in appeal before the High Court.
The Court observed that in the plaint it was specifically stated that the parties got married in Chandauli and it was the last place where they were residing together. It was observed that the permanent addresses of the parties as per the petition were in Chandauli and Jaunpur. However, in the written statement, the respondent had contested the jurisdiction based on the fact that the parties are residing in and around Mumbai.
The Court held that the Family Court had proceeded without framing the issue regarding jurisdiction, merely based on the written statement. It was held that neither party was called upon either to press the objection on jurisdiction or to rebut it.
“In fact, statutory law clearly permitted the parties to file the divorce case and other proceedings at Chandauli. Also, it has been submitted, once pleadings had been exchanged and the parties had been heard on the proceedings providing for interim maintenance, the approach adopted by the learned trial court is contrary to the spirit of the Act and negates justice dispensation,” held the Court.
The Court observed that this was an exceptional case where court could proceed without issuing notice as proper procedure was not followed by the Family Court.
The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that
“the learned trial court may have declined to exercise its jurisdiction only in the event of the respondent having raised and pressed the objection as to lack of jurisdiction (raised in paragraph no. 29 of the written statement) or where the proceeding may have been transferred to any other district (within the State), by this Court or to any other district (of the country) by the Supreme Court. Clearly, no transfer proceeding has either been instituted by the respondent.”
The Court held that in absence of any statement of hardships of the parties in travelling to Chandauli, the Family Court could not passed the order based on its assumptions of such hardships.
The Court found it unacceptable that even after pendency of the case for three years, the Family Court only dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction in a casual manner without delving into merits of the case. It was observed that the Family Court did not consider that the earlier interim maintenance order was also “washed away” due to the disposal of the petition on grounds of jurisdiction.
The Court observed that though matrimonial cases must be dealt with within a specific time frame, they are delayed due to “shortage of judicial officers, less than efficient Bar and also at times hardship and approach of the parties alongwith other factors.”
Holding the Family Court's conduct to be unacceptable, the Court remitted the case back to the Family Court, Chandauli for prompt conclusion.
Case Title: Vinay Kumar v. Suman 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 500 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 706 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 500