Location Of Marriage Reception Irrelevant For Family Court's Jurisdiction Under Hindu Marriage Act: Allahabad HC
The husband argued that even though the marriage was solemnized in Pratapgarh, a reception was held in Prayagraj, and this should be sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Family Court in Prayagraj.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that the location of a marriage reception is not relevant when determining the territorial jurisdiction of a Family Court under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Section 19(i) of the Act specifies that the Family Court has jurisdiction over matters related to marriage if the marriage was solemnized within the local limits of that Court's jurisdiction.
In this case, the appellant-husband challenged the Family Court's decision to reject his divorce petition on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The husband argued that even though the marriage was solemnized in Pratapgarh, a reception was held in Prayagraj, and this should be sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Family Court in Prayagraj.
However, the Family Court had concluded that the marriage had not taken place in Prayagraj, and the couple had last lived together in New Delhi, not in Prayagraj.
The bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh said, “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 High Court agreed with the Family Court’s reasoning, holding that the place of the marriage reception held in Prayagraj was irrelevant to the jurisdictional question. The Court emphasized that the marriage must have been solemnized at the specific location, which in this case was Pratapgarh.
Furthermore, the Court pointed out that there was no claim in the divorce petition that the couple had last resided together in Prayagraj. Given that the parties had lived in New Delhi, the Court upheld the Family Court’s finding and dismissed the appeal, maintaining the rejection of the divorce petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Cause Title: Anup Singh v. Jyoti Chandrabhan Singh, [2025:AHC:8321-DB]
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Anil Kumar Chaudhary, Deepak Singh
