Place Of Marriage Relevant Jurisdiction Under Hindu Marriage Act, Divorce Petition Can't Be Filed Where Reception Was Held: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has held that place of marriage reception is not relevant for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the Family Court under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.Section 19(i) of the Act confers jurisdiction under the Act upon a court within whose local limits the marriage between the parties was solemnized. Appellant-husband approached the High Court against...
The Allahabad High Court has held that place of marriage reception is not relevant for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the Family Court under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Section 19(i) of the Act confers jurisdiction under the Act upon a court within whose local limits the marriage between the parties was solemnized.
Appellant-husband approached the High Court against the order of the Family Court, Prayagraj, whereby his petition for divorce was rejected on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. It was argued that the parties, though married in Pratapgarh, had hosted a marriage reception in Prayagraj. Therefore, the Courts at Prayagraj had jurisdiction to decide the divorce petition.
The Family Court had held that the parties were not married in Prayagraj and they last resided as a couple in New Delhi.
The High Court held that marriage reception being hosted at Prayagraj was irrelevant for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the Family Court as the marriage was solemnized at Pratapgarh.
The bench of Justice Ashwini Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh held
“Clause (i) of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act specifies that place of marriage between the parties would be a relevant consideration to vest jurisdiction in the Court concerned. The fact that a party was hosted later at Prayagraj, therefore, would not be relevant for the purposes of conferring jurisdiction of Family Court at Prayagraj.”
The Court noted that the marriage was solemnized at Pratapgarh. Further, it observed that there was no averment in the plaint that the parties had last resided as a couple in Prayagraj.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the finding of the Family Court that the parties last resided as a couple in New Delhi.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the order of the Family Court rejecting the plaint on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
Case Title: Anup Singh v. Smt. Jyoti Chandrabhan Singh [FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 29 of 2025]