Divorce Appeal Not Maintainable Against State: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar, in Poonam v. State NCT of Delhi (2026), dismissed an appeal filed by a wife challenging a Family Court order that had returned her divorce petition for want of territorial jurisdiction, holding both that the appeal was not maintainable against the State and that it failed on merits. 

What was the Background of Poonam v. State NCT of Delhi (2026) Case? 

• The appellant-wife had filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against an order of the Family Court returning her divorce petition under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for presentation before the appropriate court. 
• The Family Court had held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), over the wife's petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. 
• The parties had married on January 18, 2019 at Gurugram, and thereafter resided together at the husband's matrimonial home in Sangam Vihar, Delhi, for around one-and-a-half to two years. 
• Following the husband's employment at Gurugram, the parties shifted to rented accommodation there and continued to live together for more than four years. 
• The wife alleged that she had been subjected to cruelty during the marriage, particularly on account of her husband's habitual consumption of alcohol, and that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home approximately two weeks before filing the divorce petition, after which she resided separately near her parental home. 
• The Family Court found that although the parties had earlier lived together at Sangam Vihar, their last shared residence was at Gurugram, and held that the earlier Delhi residence was insufficient to confer jurisdiction under Section 19(iii) of the HMA. 
• The wife filed the present appeal against the State of NCT of Delhi, without impleading the husband as a party. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Maintainability of the Appeal Against the State: 
• The Court held that it could not comprehend how an appeal challenging an order passed in divorce proceedings between the wife and husband could be maintained against the State of NCT of Delhi, particularly when the husband had not been impleaded as a party to the appeal. 
• On the Wife's Contention Regarding Section 19(iii) of the HMA: 
• The Court noted the wife's submission that the parties' residence at Sangam Vihar for around one-and-a-half to two years was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Family Court in Delhi, and that Section 19(iii) did not require the joint residence to be the last in point of time. 
• On the Scope of Section 19(iii) of the HMA: 
• Rejecting this submission, the Court held that Section 19(iii) of the HMA specifically confers jurisdiction on the court within whose territorial limits "the parties to the marriage last resided together," making the last place of joint residence determinative for the purpose of that provision. 
• On the Application of the Provision to the Facts: 
• The Court held that reliance on the parties' earlier residence at Sangam Vihar could not confer territorial jurisdiction on the Family Court, when the parties had admittedly thereafter shifted to Gurugram and last resided together there for more than four years. 
• On the Final Outcome: 
• The Bench dismissed the appeal both on the ground of maintainability and on merits. 

What is Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? 

Section 19 of the HMA lays down the courts to which a petition under the Act is to be presented. It provides that every petition shall be presented to the District Court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction — 

• The marriage was solemnised; or 
• The respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition, resides; or 
• The parties to the marriage last resided together; or 
• In case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition; or 
• The petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where the respondent is, at that time, residing outside the territories to which the Act extends, or has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive.