Dependent Domicile: How Indian Law Still Chains Married Women To Their Husband's Identity

I. The Archaic Anchor in Private International Law

In a period where legal systems assert gender equality and women's empowerment in India's private international law, there is still a single fossilised rule lingering: the married woman's dependent domicile.Under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, a woman “by marriage acquires the domicile of her husband” and her domicile during marriage “follows the domicile of her husband,”  a rule that operates irrespective of the woman's actual residence, intentions, economic independence or lived reality. Sections 15 and 16 of the Indian Succession Act continue to tie a married woman's legal identity to that of her spouse. 

Domicile is the primary connecting factor in private international law. It governs which legal system decides on the validity of marriage, matrimonial jurisdiction, divorce, succession, capacity, taxation, and a host of other rights and obligations. Where that connecting factor is applied automatically on the basis of sex and marital status, the result is not a neutral technical rule but an instrument of systemic inequality that produces real hardship, particularly for women in cross-border marriages, women abandoned abroad, and women who live and work apart from their husbands

A. The Urgency of the Issue: Data on Vulnerability

The theoretical injustice of dependent domicile is far from a mere academic concern; it manifests in real, urgent crises affecting thousands of Indian women. The sheer scale of marriage migration in India underscores the stakes, as some 224 million were married migrants, of whom a staggering 97% were women. As such, marriage is the largest-ever reason for female migration in India.

In the cross-border context, recent government data presented to Parliament revealed that 1,617 complaints were received over a recent five-year period from Indian women claiming to have been abandoned by their spouses abroad. This data, alongside reports of over   11,000 women approaching foreign missions since 2015 with complaints of domestic crises, confirms that the legal fiction of dependent domicile actively compounds real-world vulnerability.   ^[1]

B.Indian Succession Act, 1925.^[2]

The relevant provisions are in Section 15 and Section 16 of the Act:

•Section 15, which fixes the initial domicile acquisition with marriage: "by marriage a woman acquires the domicile of her husband, if she had not the same domicile before."

• Section 16 mandates that such dependent status should continue through the course of the marriage: "a wife's domicile during marriage follows the domicile of her husband" with limited exceptions.”

These provisions preserve the classical form of the dependent-domicile rule, chaining a married woman's legal identity and capacity to that of her spouse, regardless of her actual residence or subjective intention. Where that connecting factor is applied automatically based on sex, the result is an "instrument of systemic inequality".  

II. The Judicial Scrutiny of Domicile and Jurisdiction

The practical frustrations caused by the rule of dependent domicile have compelled the Indian courts to address the questions of real jurisdiction, dishonest domicile, and recognition of foreign decrees on numerous occasions. These judgments illustrate the attempts that the judges have made to moderate the bleakest effects of the doctrine, while the statutory fiction continues to operate. Satya v. Teja Singh, AIR 1975 SC 105

A.Satya v. Teja Singh,1975 SCC (1) 120, 1975 SC 105.^[3]

The doctrine of dependent domicile creates a vulnerability that migrating husbands often exploit: since the wife's domicile legally follows the husband's, the husband can fraudulently assert a foreign domicile to obtain a quick divorce in a foreign court a practice known as "forum-hunting".  

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court was tasked with recognising a Nevada divorce decree obtained by the husband. The husband had claimed a foreign domicile, which, by operation of Sections 15 and 16, would have automatically tethered the wife to that jurisdiction.  

The Supreme Court of India refused to recognise the Nevada divorce decree, based on the crucial finding that the husband's claimed foreign domicile was a sham. It stressed that domicile is a "jurisdictional fact" and condemned the practice of fraudulently asserting domicile to obtain a divorce. While the statutory rule required the wife's legal domicile to follow that of the husband, the Court intervened defensively, asserting that the genuineness of the domicile must be established. This intervention provided a limited remedy against the abuse flowing directly from the dependent domicile rule.  

B. Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi (1991) 3 S.C.C. 451, 1991 INSC 142.^[4]

As with Satya case , Y. Narasimha Rao remained sceptical of foreign decrees and of the basis of jurisdiction from which they were derived. The factual foundation was the same: the dependent domicile rule established the legal possibility that a foreign court would acquire jurisdiction over the wife through the alleged presence of the husband outside the country.

The ruling emphasised the importance of exercising "genuine jurisdiction and fairness of process" prior to validating foreign divorces. The principle established by the Supreme Court reflects the important interface between the wife's legal status (which was ascertained by domicile) and the jurisdiction of the court in recognition disputes. In requiring genuine jurisdiction, the Supreme Court imposed important limits on foreign decrees that would otherwise have been validated by the sheer statutory fiction that the wife was domiciled with her husband overseas, regardless of real connection or involvement in the proceedings.

C. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39, 2018 INSC 1079.^[5]

The constitutional prohibition of gender-related legislative dependency offers the appropriate vehicle for a direct challenge to the statutory content of the Indian Succession Act. The Supreme Court in Joseph Shine delivered a landmark modern judgment by nullifying a law (the section on adultery) that, by its own character, "treated women as legal dependents," as it upheld a woman's dignity and independent legal persona.

This decision establishes a critical constitutional standard: laws embedding sex-based disadvantage or legal dependency are vulnerable to invalidation under Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex). The constitutional precedents established in this case are highly relevant to any future challenge brought against the gendered domicile rules in the Indian Succession Act, which also treat a woman as a legal appendage of her husband.  

III. Compounding Vulnerability: Practical Consequences

The legal construct of dependent domicile manifests as significant, tangible detriments for women by establishing jurisdictional barriers and complicating property entitlements.

Jurisdictional Barriers: If a woman's domicile necessarily follows that of a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) husband, Indian courts and family courts "can be said to not have the correct jurisdictional anchor" for some of the matrimonial actions that could fall under the Code of Civil Procedure. This absence frequently compels women to "seek redress in foreign lands," creating enormous practical and financial burdens, especially when they lack financial resources, legal expertise, or knowledge of foreign languages.

Property and Succession Matters: Domicile determines succession laws applicable to movable property. An elderly woman who resides for years in India, who established immovables and businesses on her own, but is still "domiciled" elsewhere through the operation of marriage only (Sections 15 and 16), "may find her succession rights assessed under foreign rules to her manifest disadvantage". The statutory text is the "immediate source of this risk," as it makes succession to self-acquired assets contingent upon the husband's remote domicile.  

IV. Constitutional and Policy Imperative

The continued existence of the dependent domicile rule is indicative of an institutional failure to uphold India's international commitments, as well as its constitutional mandate for equality. The statutory provision directly contradicts the equality guarantees found in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution by subordinating a woman's domicile to that of her husband.

India's obligations under CEDAW, which requires signatory states to guarantee that men and women have "the same rights with regard to the freedom to choose their residence and domicile," extend beyond domestic constitutional law. The Law Commission of India has acknowledged this contradiction and emphasised the necessity of reform on numerous occasions.

Notably, in Report No. 246 (2011), the Commission boldly laid out a discernible policy framework, specifically recommending that the dependent-domicile rule be abolished and that married women must have the power of an independent domicile, thereby regaining their full legal independence. The proof is irrefutable: an Act that continues to regard married women as legal appendages of their husbands is inherently incompatible with the constitutional provisions for equality. The constitutional, moral, and policy-mandated imperative necessitates the immediate legislative removal of the dependent-domicile rule.

Views Are Personal. 

1. Ministry of External Affairs, Parliamentary Data on Complaints of Abandonment by Spouses Abroad (India) (Figures concerning 1,617 complaints and 11,000 women approaching foreign missions were reported by the MEA in response to parliamentary questions and subsequent government responses) ↑

2. Satya v. Teja Singh: 1975 AIR 105; 1975 SCR (2) 97; 1975 SCC (1) 120, 1975 SC 105] ↑

3. Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi: (1991) 3 SCC 451 [Neutral citation: 1991 INSC 142] ↑

4. Joseph Shine v. Union of India: (2019) 3 SCC 39; AIR 2018 SC 4898 [Neutral citation: 2019 SC 39] ↑

5. Law Comm'n of India, Report No. 246 (2011). ↑