Reception Held In Mumbai Not Part Of Marriage Ritual: High Court Declines Mumbai Family Court's Jurisdiction Over Husband's Divorce Plea
Observing that reception can't be considered part of the marriage ritual, the Bombay High Court recently held that the family court in Mumbai had no jurisdiction over a divorce case just because the couple had the wedding reception in Mumbai and resided there for a few days.“There is no dispute between the parties that all the rituals of the marriage took place on 7 June, 2015 at...
Observing that reception can't be considered part of the marriage ritual, the Bombay High Court recently held that the family court in Mumbai had no jurisdiction over a divorce case just because the couple had the wedding reception in Mumbai and resided there for a few days.
“There is no dispute between the parties that all the rituals of the marriage took place on 7 June, 2015 at Jodhpur, Rajasthan. In Mumbai, there was only a wedding reception on 11 June, 2015. In my view, there can't be any doubt that a wedding reception can't be called as a part of marriage ritual”, the court observed.
Justice Rajesh S Patil allowed a woman's application challenging Family Court Mumbai's jurisdiction over her husband's divorce petition observing that the couple's actual last place of joint residence is in the US.
“Sec.19(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, nowhere mentions “last residing together in India”. In my view such words “in India”, can't be read in the sub-section (iii) of 19”, the court observed.
The couple got married on June 7, 2015, following Hindu rites and rituals in Jodhpur. A reception was held in Mumbai at a hotel on June 11, 2015. Following the reception, the couple briefly resided in Mumbai at the husband's parental home before both departing for the United States. The husband had been residing and working in the US even before the marriage, and the wife joined him there on August 1, 2015.
However, the couple encountered irreconcilable differences, leading to their separation on October 15, 2019, while still residing in the US. The husband filed for divorce on August 6, 2020, citing cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. This petition was notarized in the US, necessitating its filing in Mumbai through a power of attorney holder, his father.
The wife initiated divorce proceedings in the US on December 10, 2020, underscoring her reluctance to recognize the jurisdiction of the Mumbai Family Court over the matter. Subsequently, on August 30, 2021, she filed an application challenging the maintainability of her husband's divorce petition in the Mumbai Family Court.
The Family Court, Mumbai rejected the wife's application asserting its jurisdiction over the matter, prompting her to file the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court.
Advocate Gayatri Gokhale for the wife emphasized that the last residence of both parties was in the US, thereby contesting the jurisdiction of the Mumbai Family Court. On the other hand, advocate Siddharth Shah for the husband argued that Mumbai had jurisdiction as it was the last place of their joint residence in India.
Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act delineates the jurisdictional parameters for filing divorce petitions. It provides that the appropriate jurisdiction for filing the divorce petition can be where the marriage was solemnized, where the parties last resided together, and where the petitioner (in case the respondent resides abroad) or respondent currently resides. The court highlighted the amendment to the Act in 2003, allowing an aggrieved wife to file a petition in the district court where she resides at the time of filing.
The court noted that the statute does not explicitly mandate that the last residence be in India, thus rejecting the contention that Mumbai was the appropriate jurisdiction solely based on the brief stay of the couple in the city.
The court further said that the marriage rituals that occurred in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, and a wedding reception in Mumbai did not constitute part of the marriage ritual.
Ultimately, the court ruled that the last place of residence together for the couple was in the United States, not Mumbai. The Family Court in Mumbai lacked jurisdiction to entertain the divorce petition under Section 19(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the court held.
Thus, the court quashed the impugned judgment and allowed the wife's application challenging the jurisdiction of the Mumbai Family Court.
Advocates Gayatri Gokhale and Sneha Jethwa represented the wife.
Advocates Siddharth Shah and Riya Rele represented the husband.
Case no. – Writ Petition No. 8829 of 2023
Case Title – Shikha Lodha v. Suketu Shah and Anr.