Poonam vs State Nct Of Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010367302026
Reserved on: 11.08.2026
Pronounced on: 07.09.2026
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 285/2026
POONAM .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Manoj Singh, Adv.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
J U D G M E N T
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-wife under
Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the Order dated
14.05.2026 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the learned Family Court-
02 (South), District Saket Courts, Delhi (“Family Court”) in HMA
No. 849/2026 titled “ Poonam v. Vimal Prasad ”, whereby the petition
along with the documents was returned to the appellant under Order
VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) for
presentation before the appropriate Court, on the ground that the
Family Court lacked territorial jurisdiction in view of Section 19 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”).
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the marriage between the
appellant and the husband, Sh. Vimal Prasad, was solemnized on
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
PATWAL
Signing Date:07.09.2026
17:21:32
MAT.APP. (F.C.) 285/2026 Page 1 of 7

18.01.2019 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Gurugram,
Haryana. After the marriage, the parties resided together at the
matrimonial home of the husband at Sangam Vihar, Delhi for about
one and a half to two years, during which period the marriage was
consummated and three children were born from the wedlock. The
appellant alleges that she was subjected to cruelty by the husband
throughout the marriage, particularly on account of his habitual
consumption of alcohol. The husband thereafter secured employment
at Gurugram, pursuant to which the parties shifted to a rented
accommodation at Gurugram, where the alleged cruelty continued.
About two weeks prior to the filing of the divorce petition, the
appellant was allegedly turned out of the matrimonial home and has,
since then, been residing separately near her parental home, along
with the children, without financial support from the husband.
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid facts, the appellant filed a petition
under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the HMA before the Family Court, seeking
dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, which was returned
vide impugned order passed by learned Family Court, holding that it
lacked territorial jurisdiction under Section 19 of the HMA. It was
noted by the Family Court that, as per the coloured copy of the
marriage invitation card placed on record, the marriage between the
parties had, in fact, taken place at Phool Vatika, Gurugram, Haryana,
and that both the appellant and the husband were, admittedly, residing
at Gurugram. The learned Family Court accordingly held that the
parties had last resided together at Gurugram, and that the mere fact
that they had resided together for some period at Sangam Vihar, Delhi,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
PATWAL
Signing Date:07.09.2026
17:21:32
MAT.APP. (F.C.) 285/2026 Page 2 of 7

was insufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction upon the courts at
Delhi under Section 19(iii) of the HMA. The petition was,
accordingly, directed to be returned for presentation before the
appropriate court, giving rise to the filing of the present appeal.
4. The impugned order has been assailed by the appellant on the
ground that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the
parties had resided together at Sangam Vihar, Delhi for about one and
a half to two years, and that the said residence was, by itself, sufficient
to confer territorial jurisdiction upon the courts at Delhi under Section
19(iii) of the HMA.
5. The appellant submits that the said residence at Sangam Vihar,
Delhi, having continued for about one and a half to two years
immediately after the marriage, cannot be treated as a place of merely
transient or fleeting stay, and that Section 19(iii) of the HMA does not
require the residence to be the last in point of time so long as the
parties resided together as husband and wife within the jurisdiction of
the court concerned.
6. At this stage, it is relevant to note that the present appeal has
been filed by the appellant against the State of NCT of Delhi.
However, the respondent-husband, against whom the original divorce
petition was filed and whose pleadings and conduct form the subject
matter of the proceedings, has not been impleaded as a respondent in
the present appeal.
7. We fail to comprehend as to how the present appeal,
challenging an order passed in divorce proceedings between the
appellant-wife and the respondent-husband, could be maintained
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
PATWAL
Signing Date:07.09.2026
17:21:32
MAT.APP. (F.C.) 285/2026 Page 3 of 7

against the State of NCT of Delhi, particularly when the respondent-
husband has not been impleaded as a party to the present appeal.
8. In view of the aforesaid defect in the array of parties, though
present appeal itself is not maintainable, even then we proceeded to
consider the submissions of the appellant even on merits.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have
perused the material on record.
10. Before deciding the controversy, it is pertinent to note the
provisions of Section 19 of the HMA, which reads as under:
“19. Court to which petition shall be presented.-
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 solemnised, 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.” (emphasis added)
11. The question that arises for consideration is whether, in terms of
Section 19(iii) of the HMA, the parties had last resided together within
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
PATWAL
Signing Date:07.09.2026
17:21:32
MAT.APP. (F.C.) 285/2026 Page 4 of 7

the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court at Delhi, and for
deciding this, we should advert to the pleadings of appellant in the
divorce petition. The relevant portions of the petition are reproduced
hereinbelow:-
“5. That right from the day of her marriage, the
petitioner has been subjected to taunts, humiliation,
exploitation, deprivation, maltreatment and uses of
filthy languages and frequent beatings and tortured,
cruelty at the hands of the respondent and his family
members. That the petitioner lived at her
matrimonial house in Sangam Vihar for about one
and half years and thereafter the
respondent got a job in Gurugram therefore the
petitioner and respondent shifted to Gurugram and
started living there in a rented accommodation.
14. That about two weeks ago the respondent threw
the petitioner out of the house and did not even
allow to take her clothes and her children along with
her and the whole night she stayed outside her house
and in the morning she developed some courage and
went to the police station Gurugram to complain
against the respondent but even the police personnel
did not take any action and advised her to approach
the court to seek her remedies.
32. That the petitioner and respondent after their
marriage resided together at House No.1807, L-l,
Gali No.5, Near Asthal Mandir Sangam Vihar,
South Delhi, Delhi-l10062 for about two years
within the jurisdiction of this Hon 'bIe Court hence
this Hon 'bIe Court has the jurisdiction to try and
entertain the present petition.”

12. If we go by the pleadings of appellant, it is reflected that the
parties stayed together at Sangam Vihar, Delhi for around one and a
half to two years after their marriage on 18.01.2019 and therefore
shifted to Gurugram, where they stayed together until two weeks prior
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
PATWAL
Signing Date:07.09.2026
17:21:32
MAT.APP. (F.C.) 285/2026 Page 5 of 7

to filing of the divorce petition, which was filed in May 2026.
13. Merely relying upon the parties’ earlier residence at Sangam
Vihar for about one and a half years cannot confer territorial
jurisdiction upon the learned Family Court when, admittedly, the
parties thereafter shifted to Gurugram and lastly resided together
there. The requirement under Section 19(iii) of the HMA is that the
parties must have last resided together within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Court. The parties resided together for around one
and a half to two years at Sangam Vihar, Delhi whereafter they
resided together for more than four years at Gurugram. In view of this
factual position, we find ourselves unable to accept the submissions
urged on behalf of the appellant. The impugned order correctly
records that the parties last resided together at Gurugram, and not at
Sangam Vihar, Delhi.
14. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellant upon the
judgment of this Court in Renu Vij v. Surinder Kumar , C.M.(M) No.
251/1984 , Balvinder Kaur v. Mukul Kumar Srivastava, 2008 SCC
OnLine All 1188 and Vijay Singh v. Chanchal Chaudhary, 2016 SCC
OnLine Del 2218 , is misplaced and not relevant in the facts of this
case. None of the judgement lay down that any place where the parties
had earlier resided together would confer jurisdiction under Section
19(iii) of the HMA irrespective of their subsequent residence. On the
contrary, the statutory expression “the parties to the marriage last
resided together” makes the last place of such joint residence
determinative.
15. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed on
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
PATWAL
Signing Date:07.09.2026
17:21:32
MAT.APP. (F.C.) 285/2026 Page 6 of 7

maintainability as well as on merits. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.



VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J

RENU BHATNAGAR, J
/ bs/ns
SEPTEMBER 07, 2026
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
PATWAL
Signing Date:07.09.2026
17:21:32
MAT.APP. (F.C.) 285/2026 Page 7 of 7