Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Allahabad in the matter of Smt. Adity Rastogi v. Anubhav Verma, has observed that the term residing used in Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not defined under this Act, and so a casual visit to a place will not grant jurisdiction to the Court in that area to adjudicate upon divorce proceedings.

What was the Background of Smt. Adity Rastogi v. Anubhav Verma Case?

• The appellant who is residing in Australia have instituted the divorce proceedings on her short visit to India.
• Before the Family Court, the appellant filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
• The Family Court rejected the application as the proceedings instituted by the present appellant as lacking in territorial jurisdiction.
• Thereafter, the present appeal was filed before the Allahabad High Court which was later dismissed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench comprising of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi observed that the term residing though not defined under HMA, clearly denotes more than a casual visit to a place falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court where a divorce proceeding may be instituted.
• The Court further noted that once it is admitted to the appellant that she is continuing to reside in Australia though under force of circumstance, it has to be maintained in law that she is not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court.

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 that is material.