A wife’s residence confers territorial jurisdiction for filing divorce under Section 19(iii-a).

The petitioner-husband and the opposite party-wife were married on 8 July 2018 at Hotel Gopinath, Khandapada Road, Nayagarh.

The wife subsequently filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar.

The husband filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the divorce petition on the ground that the Family Court, Bhubaneswar lacked territorial jurisdiction because the marriage was not solemnised there, the parties had not last resided together there, and the husband did not reside there when the petition was presented.

The Family Court rejected the application, observing that the matter had reached the stage of final arguments.

In the revision, the husband again challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The High Court also noted that the wife’s address in the revision petition and the impugned order was within Bhubaneswar, and that evidence had already been recorded before the jurisdictional objection was raised.

Whether the Family Court, Bhubaneswar had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the wife’s divorce petition under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, particularly Section 19(iii-a)?

Whether the husband’s objection to territorial jurisdiction, raised at the stage when the matter was posted for final arguments, could be entertained in view of Section 21(1) of the CPC?

Whether want of territorial jurisdiction could justify rejection of the wife’s petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC?

The Court applied Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which prescribes the territorial forums for presenting a matrimonial petition; under Section 19(iii-a), where the wife is the petitioner, the petition may be presented before the District Court within whose jurisdiction she resides on the date of presentation.

Section 21(1) CPC provides that an objection to the place of suing cannot be entertained by an appellate or revisional court unless it was raised at the earliest possible opportunity, at or before settlement of issues, and there has been a consequent failure of justice.

Order VII Rule 11 CPC does not empower a court to reject a plaint or matrimonial petition merely for want of territorial jurisdiction; where territorial jurisdiction is lacking, the appropriate course is return of the plaint or petition, not rejection.

The Court found that the wife was residing at LB-134, Stage-II, Laxmisagar BDA Colony, Bhubaneswar, on the date relevant to the proceedings, as reflected in the cause title and the impugned order.

Consequently, her petition fell directly within Section 19(iii-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, conferring territorial jurisdiction on the Family Court, Bhubaneswar.

The husband’s reliance on the wife’s cross-examination, where she stated that she had left Bhubaneswar after pursuing PGDCA, did not establish that she could not have returned and resided there.

Independently, the objection was raised only after the evidence of PW1 had been recorded and the case had reached the stage of arguments; therefore, it was not taken at the earliest opportunity and no consequent failure of justice was shown, attracting the bar under Section 21(1) CPC.

The Court also held that the application under Order VII Rule 11 was procedurally misconceived because territorial lack of jurisdiction, even if established, would warrant return rather than rejection of the petition.

The husband’s delayed objection was also barred by Section 21(1) CPC, and Order VII Rule 11 CPC could not be invoked to reject the divorce petition for want of territorial jurisdiction.

The Civil Revision was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit.