Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Ashwini Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh has held that for conferring the jurisdiction on Family court place of marriage is not relevant. 

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the matter of Anup Singh v. Smt. Jyoti Chandrabhan Singh (2025).   

What was the Background of the Anup Singh v. Smt. Jyoti Chandrabhan Singh Case? 

• The case concerns a matrimonial dispute between Anup Singh (husband/appellant) and Smt. Jyoti Chandrabhan Singh (wife/respondent). 
• The marriage between the parties was solemnized at Pratapgarh, following which a reception was hosted at Prayagraj. 
• The husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (HMA) before the Family Court, Prayagraj. 
• Upon the Family Court's refusal to entertain the petition, the husband filed a review application, which was also rejected. 
• The husband subsequently filed an appeal against the Family Court's order, along with a Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application for the delay in filing the appeal. 
• The husband contended that although the marriage was solemnized in Pratapgarh, the reception was hosted in Prayagraj and disputed the finding that the parties lastly resided in New Delhi. 
• The jurisdictional question arose under Section 19 of HMA which prescribes the territorial jurisdiction for filing matrimonial petitions. 
• The matter pertains primarily to the question of territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, Prayagraj, to entertain the divorce petition. 
• The trial Court concluded that necessary ingredients to vest jurisdiction in the Family Court, Allahabad (Prayagraj) were lacking. 
• Refused to entertain the petition on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Allahabad High Court made the following observations: 
  • Examined Section 19 of the HMA and noted that the place of marriage is a relevant consideration for jurisdiction under Clause (i). 
  • It was determined that hosting a reception party at Prayagraj after marriage was not relevant for conferring jurisdiction to the Family Court at Prayagraj. 
  • Confirmed that it remained undisputed that marriage was solemnized at Pratapgarh. 
  • Found no specific assertion in the plaint showing that parties lastly lived together as married couple at Prayagraj. 
  • Upheld the Trial Court's finding that parties lastly lived together in New Delhi, noting this finding was neither erroneous nor perverse. 
  • Found no illegality or infirmity in the Family Court's judgment refusing to entertain the petition on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. 
• While dismissing the appeal, noted that the appellant could approach the competent court for necessary relief. 

What is Section 19 of HMA? 

• This Section contains provision in relation to the Courts in which petition shall be presented. 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; 
    • (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. 
• Section 19 of Hindu Marriage Act is quite a liberal provision as it enables both the parties to have convenience for contesting the matrimonial petition. 
• The term resides used in clause (ii) of this section represents actual place of residence and not a legal or constructing residence. 
• In the case of Mahadevi v. N.N. Sirathia (1973), Allahabad High Court observed that Section 19 of HMA does not deal with the length of residence. Even a short residence may be sufficient to give the court jurisdiction to entertain petition. If the husband and wife had lived together in the same residence, then they must be deemed to have resided together. Thus, the factum of residence and not the purpose of residence is material.