Divorce Act's Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Expanded Without Legislative Amendment

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas of the Kerala High Court, in Princy N.V. v. Union of India (2026), declined to read an additional forum into Section 3(3) of the Divorce Act, 1869 that would allow a Christian wife to institute divorce proceedings at her place of residence, holding that such a change could only be brought about by Parliament and not by judicial interpretation. 

What was the Background of Princy N.V. v. Union of India (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner, Princy N.V., approached the Kerala High Court after the Family Court at Kalpetta returned her divorce petition for want of territorial jurisdiction. 
• The petitioner had allegedly suffered domestic violence and had fled her matrimonial home in Kasaragod — the place of solemnisation of marriage and last residence of the couple — to her parents' home in Wayanad. 
• Under Section 3(3) of the Divorce Act, 1869, she could not institute divorce proceedings at her current place of residence, a facility available to wives under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954. 
• The petitioner contended that this omission amounted to discrimination on grounds of religion and sex, violating her right to equality and dignity under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution, and urged the Court to interpret Section 3(3) to include the forum of the wife's residence. 
• The Union of India opposed the plea, contending that territorial jurisdiction is a matter of statute, that courts cannot legislate from the bench, and that Parliament had consciously left the Divorce Act untouched during the 2003 matrimonial law amendments.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On judicial restraint and legislative function: The Court held that adding words to a statute is a legislative function which courts are not permitted to perform, and found that the language of Section 3(3) was plain and unambiguous, leaving no scope for judicial construction. 
• On the rule of plain meaning: The Court reiterated the elementary principle of interpretation that where the words of a statute are clear and susceptible of only one meaning, courts are bound to give effect to that meaning regardless of the consequences that may follow. 
• On the available remedy: The Court observed that the petitioner was not without recourse, as Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits a party to seek transfer of a case from one court to another, and such a transfer could be allowed if the transferee court is satisfied. 
• On the legislative gap: While dismissing the petition, the Court acknowledged the structural imbalance in matrimonial law and, in a parting observation to the legislature, termed it "strange" and "unfortunate" that the Divorce Act remains unaligned with more progressive personal law statutes such as the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act. 
• On relief and reference to the legislature: The Court found no justifiable reason for the absence of a provision enabling wives to file for divorce at their place of residence and urged Parliament to consider an amendment. The Registry was directed to forward the judgment to the Ministry of Law and Justice for consideration. The petition was accordingly dismissed. 

What is the Divorce Act, 1869? 

About the Act: 

• The Act lays down the divorce law applicable to persons professing Christianity in India, covering matters such as separation, divorce, and the rights of husband and wife. 
• It was enacted under British rule and came into force on 1st April 1869, and has since been amended to bring it closer to modern standards of fairness. 
• It extends to Christians across India (Jammu and Kashmir was earlier excluded). 
• Different religious communities in India are governed by separate marriage and divorce statutes — Hindus by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Muslims by Muslim personal law; Parsis by the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936; and inter-faith couples by the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Divorce Act, 1869 occupies this space for Christians. 
• Its overarching objective is to secure justice and safeguard the rights of spouses when a marriage breaks down.

Section 3(3) of the Divorce Act, 1869: 

Section 3(3) of the Divorce Act, 1869 – Territorial Jurisdiction for Matrimonial Petitions: 

• The Act governs divorce and matrimonial relief among persons professing the Christian religion in India. 
• Under Section 3(3), a matrimonial petition may be presented to the District Court within whose jurisdiction the marriage was solemnised, or within whose jurisdiction the husband and wife reside or last resided together. 
• Unlike the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the Divorce Act does not presently permit a petition to be filed at the place where the wife alone resides at the time of filing. 
• Any addition of a further forum, such as the wife's current place of residence, would require a legislative amendment to the provision.

What is Section 24 of the CPC? 

Section 24 CPC – General Power of Transfer and Withdrawal: 

• Sub-section (1): On application of any party (after notice and hearing those who wish to be heard), or on its own motion without notice, the High Court or District Court may, at any stage — 
  (a) transfer any suit, appeal, or other proceeding pending before it to any subordinate court competent to try or dispose of it; or 
  (b) withdraw any suit, appeal, or other proceeding pending in any subordinate court, and either try/dispose of it itself, transfer it to a competent subordinate court, or retransfer it to the court from which it was withdrawn. 
• Sub-section (2): Where a suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1), the court thereafter trying or disposing of it may, subject to any special directions given in the transfer order, either retry it or continue from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn. 
• Sub-section (3): For the purposes of this section — 
  (a) Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges are deemed subordinate to the District Court; 
  (b) "proceeding" includes a proceeding for execution of a decree or order. 
• Sub-section (4): A court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn from a Court of Small Causes shall, for that suit, be deemed a Court of Small Causes. 
• Sub-section (5): A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section even from a court which has no jurisdiction to try it.