Neha v. Manmohan Randhawa

1. The appellant is aggrieved by an order of20^'' April, 2013 by which an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for return of the petition on the ground of lack ofterritorial jurisdiction ofthe Family Courts was rejected.

2. Briefly the facts are that the parties in the present litigation married each other in the year 2011. Concededly, the marriage was solemnized in Janakpuri, Delhi. The petitioner/husband claimed that the parties last lived together in Dwarka. On the other hand, the appellant/wife contended that the place where the petition was preferred i.e. Dwarka, did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Elaborating on this, it is contended that though marriage was solemnized in Janakpuri; that area falls 2013:DHC:7869-DB s within the territorial limits of the Tis Hazari District. It is also contended that the place where the wife resides - one of the other locales where the petition can be filed, also falls within the Tis Hazari jurisdiction. Counsel contends that the matrimonial home was at Mhow where the husband and wife last resided together.

3. Counsel for the husband/respondent on the other hand contended that no exception can be taken to the impugned order which has taken into consideration the pleadings in the petition and held that the Family Courts, Dwarka had jurisdiction of the dispute. It was stated that the husband had every intention of filing the petition at Mhow as that would have been convenient and also concededly one of the place where the parties last resided together.

4. This Court has considered these submissions. The Family Court in its order has stated as follows: "5. Section 19(1) of Hindu Marriage Act provides the court which shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the divorce petition. Section 19 (1) clearly provides that the petition under the Act be presented to the District court within legal limit of the marriage was solemnized. In the present case, though admittedly the marriage was solemnized in Banquet Hall at Janak Puri, Delhi but the said time the petitioner was residing and having a permanent residence in Janak Puri, New Delhi. In modem times with the constraints of space, the venue of marriage may be different from the residence of the parties but from the legal point ofview, it is the residence of the petitionerwhichshall be deemed to be placed from where the marriage is solemnized. In fact, all the rituals and customs are also generally performed in the house, though actual marriage ceremony may taken palce in the Banquet Hall.

6. Since, the petitioner was residing in Dwarka, Delhi at the time of marriage of the parties and the parties came to this house after the marriage was performed, the place of marriage is Dwarka & not the Banquest Hall, Janak Puri. This court has thus, got temtorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition under section 19 (1) of the Act. The application ofthe respondent is hereby dismissed. "

5. The pleadings in the case established that though the parties did solemnize their marriage in Janakpuri, there are averments to the effect that wife stayed at Dwarka contemporaneously or around the time when the relationship turned sour. In these circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity with the impugned order especially since the husband has chosen to approach the Delhi Courts rather than filing a petition in Mhow where concededly the local Court would have jurisdiction. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

NOVEMBER 08, 2013 ak

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J