Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Bombay High Court held that the wedding reception can’t be considered as a part of marriage rituals.

What was the Background of this Case?

• The petitioner (wife) and respondent (husband) got married according to Hindu Vedic rites and rituals on 7^th June, 2015 at Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
• After their marriage at Jodhpur, there was a wedding reception in a hotel, at Grant Road, Mumbai on 11^th June, 2015.
• On 15^th October 2019 due to matrimonial issues arising out of the wedlock, the wife and the husband separated when they were residing in U.S.A.
• On 6 August 2020, the husband filed a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty in Family Court at Bandra.
• The wife subsequently filed application challenging the maintainability of the divorce petition filed by the husband before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai as none of the grounds as mentioned under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) were attracted.
• The Family Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner, holding that the Family Court, Mumbai has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Divorce Petition filed by Husband.
• Challenging this judgment a writ petition has been filed before the Bombay High Court by the petitioner.
• Allowing the petition, the High Court set aside the judgment passed by the Family Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Rajesh Patil observed that a wedding reception cannot be considered a part of marriage rituals and hence, the jurisdiction to file a divorce petition lies before the family court where the marriage ceremony took place and not where the wedding reception happened.

What is Section 19 of HMA?

• Section 19 defines where the petition could be filed. It states that -

Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the District Court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction. —

(i) The marriage was solemnized, or

(ii) The respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition, resides, or

(iii) The parties to the marriage last resided together, or

(iiia) In case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition; or

(iv) 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 this 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.