Bombay HC Returns Divorce Petition Filed in Panvel by Wife Living in US, Says Her Parents’ Home Does Not Confer Jurisdiction

The respondent-wife filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel.

The petitioner-husband objected to the court’s territorial jurisdiction.

He contended that both parties had lived and worked in the United States since 2014 and had never resided at Panvel.

The wife relied on her previous residence with her parents at Panvel, her stated willingness to return to India, and a restraining order in the United States that prevented her return.

The trial court rejected the jurisdictional objection; the husband challenged that order by writ petition.

Section 19(iiia) of the Hindu Marriage Act permits a wife to present a petition in the court within whose local limits she is residing on the date of presentation.

In Jeewanti Pandey v. Kishan Chandra Pandey, (1981) 4 SCC 517, the Supreme Court held that “resides” in Section 19 refers to actual residence, not legal or constructive residence or a person’s place of origin; residence requires more than a temporary stay and must be of a sufficiently settled character.

The court also relied on Smt. Aditya Rastogi v. Anubhav Varma, 2023:AHC:205480-DB, which held that a wife continuing to reside abroad does not reside within the territorial jurisdiction of an Indian court merely because her circumstances compel her to remain abroad.

The court treated the wife’s asserted permanent residence at Panvel as, in substance, a claim based on her former home and place of origin.

Under Jeewanti Pandey, neither that connection nor her parents’ residence established that she was actually residing at Panvel when she presented the petition.

Her willingness to return to India, and the alleged restraint preventing her return, did not alter her place of residence for Section 19(iiia).

Although the provision is beneficial, the court held that its language could not be extended to a parental home where the wife was not living.

It allowed the writ petition, set aside the trial court’s order, and directed that the wife’s petition be returned to her for presentation before the proper court.