Case Note & Summary
The revision petitioner, the wife in matrimonial proceedings, filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Principal Family Court, Chennai, seeking dissolution of her marriage with the respondent. The petition was presented online through litigant login. The Family Court returned the petition on 30.12.2025 and 21.01.2026 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, as the wife was residing in Sydney, Australia at the time of filing. Aggrieved, the wife filed a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court. The wife's counsel argued that the wife was temporarily residing in Sydney for employment but her permanent address was in Chennai, within the jurisdiction of the Family Court. He relied on Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which allows a wife to file a petition at the place where she resides on the date of presentation. He also cited Sondur Gopal v. Sondur Rajini, (2013) 7 SCC 426, which held that the Act applies to Hindus domiciled in India even if they reside abroad. The High Court examined the records and found that the wife had clearly stated her permanent address in Chennai and had filed her Aadhaar card and bank passbook in support. The court held that the wife's temporary stay in Australia did not change her domicile of origin in Chennai. The court also noted that the Family Court had permitted online filing and the petition was signed by the wife herself. The High Court set aside the orders of return and directed the Family Court to register the petition and assign a main number. The court emphasized that Section 19 gives a choice to the wife to file at her place of residence, and the Family Court had erred in returning the petition.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Jurisdiction - Section 19 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Wife's residence - The wife filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Principal Family Court, Chennai, while she was temporarily residing in Sydney, Australia for employment. The Family Court returned the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The High Court held that under Section 19 of the Act, a wife can file a petition at the place where she is residing on the date of presentation. The wife had furnished her permanent address in Chennai and her Aadhaar card and bank passbook supported that address. The court also noted that the Hindu Marriage Act has extra-territorial operation for Hindus domiciled in India. Therefore, the Family Court had jurisdiction. (Paras 1-10) B) Family Law - Domicile - Section 1(2) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Extra-territorial application - The court relied on Sondur Gopal v. Sondur Rajini, (2013) 7 SCC 426, which held that the Hindu Marriage Act applies to Hindus domiciled in India even if they reside outside India. The wife's domicile of origin in Chennai was not abandoned by her temporary stay in Australia. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court at Chennai has jurisdiction to entertain a divorce petition filed by a wife who is temporarily residing in Australia but has her permanent residence and domicile in Chennai.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the civil revision petition, set aside the orders of return dated 30.12.2025 and 21.01.2026 passed by the Principal Family Court, Chennai, and directed the Family Court to register the petition and assign a main number.
Law Points
- Section 19 Hindu Marriage Act
- 1955
- Section 13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act
- Domicile
- Residence
- Extra-territorial operation
- Jurisdiction of Family Court
