Case Note & Summary
The matter before the High Court of Karnataka arose from an appeal against the order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in M.C. No.7135/2025. The appellants, a wife and husband, married on 09.08.2018 before the Marriage Officer, Embassy of India, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman under the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969. After living together in Muscat, they separated in August 2021 due to irreconcilable differences but continued residing under the same roof until March 2024. The wife returned to India in August 2024 and resided in Bengaluru, while the husband continued to reside and work in Oman. The parties asserted that they were Indian domiciliaries, had not resumed cohabitation, had no children, and had amicably settled all issues arising from the marriage. They jointly presented a petition under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 read with Section 18 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. Both appeared before the Family Court and expressed consent. The Family Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable on the ground that the wife had not completed three years of residence in India immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, relying on Section 18(3)(a)(ii) of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969. The appellants filed the present miscellaneous first appeal under Section 39 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 read with Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act. During the appeal hearing, the court identified a legal question requiring interpretation of Section 18 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969: whether that section mandates a minimum period of three years of residence in India as a jurisdictional pre-condition before a Family Court can entertain a petition for dissolution of a marriage solemnized in a foreign country. By order dated 23.07.2026, the court appointed Ms. Krutika Raghavan as Amicus Curiae to assist. The Amicus Curiae submitted a detailed report on 11.08.2026 examining the statutory scheme of Section 18, the distinction between domicile and residence, and the requirements of Section 18(3)(a)(i) and (ii). The report explained that Section 18(1) applies relevant provisions of Chapters IV, V, VI and VII of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 to foreign marriages where at least one party is an Indian citizen; Section 18(2) deals with the forum; and Section 18(3) limits the court's power to grant matrimonial reliefs. The court extracted Section 18(3)(a), which provides that nothing shall authorise a court to make a decree of dissolution except where (i) the parties to the marriage are domiciled in India at the time of presentation of the petition, or (ii) the petitioner, being the wife, was domiciled in India immediately before the marriage and has been residing in India for not less than three years immediately preceding the presentation. The Amicus Curiae noted that the legislature consciously used three distinct concepts—citizenship, residence, and domicile—in different sub-sections of Section 18, and pointed out that the Statement of Objects and Reasons states that sub-clause (3) of Section 18 embodies recognised principles of private international law as to jurisdiction of Indian courts to grant matrimonial relief. The decision on the appeal was not available in the supplied excerpt.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Foreign Marriage Dissolution - Jurisdictional Preconditions - Foreign Marriage Act, 1969, Section 18(3)(a)(i)-(ii) - Appeal arose from dismissal of a mutual consent divorce petition because the wife had not resided in India for three years immediately preceding the petition; the High Court framed the question whether Section 18 mandates three years of residence as a jurisdictional precondition and sought assistance of Amicus Curiae. (Paras 1-10) B) Statutory Interpretation - Domicile, Residence, Citizenship - Distinct Concepts - Foreign Marriage Act, 1969, Section 18(1), 18(2), 18(3)(a) - Amicus Curiae report submitted that the legislature consciously employed three distinct legal concepts in Section 18 and that the Statement of Objects and Reasons indicates Section 18(3) embodies recognised private international law principles linking dissolution jurisdiction to domicile. (Paras 12-15) C) Family Law - Mutual Consent Divorce - Maintainability - Special Marriage Act, 1954, Section 28 - The parties married under the Foreign Marriage Act at Muscat, are Indian domiciliaries with no children, and presented a joint petition for mutual consent; the Family Court held the petition not maintainable based on Section 18(3)(a)(ii) residence requirement; on appeal the court examined whether clause (i) domicile and clause (ii) residence are alternatives. (Paras 2-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 18 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969, which governs the jurisdiction of Indian Courts in respect of matrimonial proceedings concerning marriages solemnised in a foreign country, mandates a minimum period of three years of residence in India as a jurisdictional pre-condition before a petition for dissolution of marriage can be entertained by a Family Court in India?
Final Decision
Not mentioned in available excerpt; the final decision of the High Court on the appeal is not included in the supplied judgment text, which ends with the Amicus Curiae report discussion.
Law Points
- Domicile requirement under Section 18(3)(a)(i) is alternative to residence requirement under Section 18(3)(a)(ii)
- Foreign Marriage Act
- 1969 embodies private international law principles on jurisdiction
- Citizenship
- residence
- and domicile are distinct concepts in Section 18
- Mutual consent divorce under Section 28 Special Marriage Act read with Section 18 Foreign Marriage Act requires jurisdictional compliance
