Pranav B Prem

The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that the location of a marriage reception does not determine territorial jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It clarified that jurisdiction is conferred based on specific factors outlined in the Act, such as the place of solemnization of marriage or the place where the parties last resided together as a couple.

Case Background

The case arose from an appeal by the husband, Anup Singh, against the decision of the Family Court in Prayagraj, which dismissed his divorce petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The appellant contended that although the marriage was solemnized in Pratapgarh, the couple hosted a marriage reception in Prayagraj, and therefore, the Prayagraj Family Court should have jurisdiction. The Family Court, however, found that the marriage was neither solemnized in Prayagraj nor had the parties last resided there as a couple. Instead, it determined that the parties had last lived together in New Delhi, which excluded Prayagraj from having jurisdiction over the case.

Key Observations by the High Court

The division bench, comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh, upheld the Family Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal. It made the following key observations:

1. Relevance of the Place of Solemnization: The court referred to Section 19(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which specifies that the district court where the marriage was solemnized has jurisdiction. The judges reiterated that a subsequent marriage reception held elsewhere does not impact jurisdiction. The bench stated: “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.”

2. Last Place of Residence: The High Court emphasized that Section 19(iii) of the Act considers the place where the parties last resided together as a couple to determine jurisdiction. The Family Court’s finding that the couple last resided in New Delhi was upheld, as no evidence suggested that Prayagraj was their last place of residence.

3. Plaint’s Deficiency: The court noted that the plaint filed by the appellant did not include any specific claim that the couple resided together in Prayagraj. The evidence examined by the Family Court confirmed that the parties’ last residence was in New Delhi, making Prayagraj Family Court’s jurisdiction untenable.

Dismissal of the Appeal

Finding no merit in the appellant’s arguments, the High Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the Family Court had rightly refused to entertain the petition due to a lack of territorial jurisdiction. The judgment further stated that the appellant was free to approach a competent court with the appropriate jurisdiction.

Cause Title: Anup Singh v. Smt. Jyoti Chandrabhan Singh

Case No: FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 29 of 2025

Date: January-17-2025

Bench: Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Justice Donadi Ramesh

[Read/Download order]