The Bombay High Court recently emphasized that hosting a wedding reception and temporarily residing in Mumbai doesn't automatically subject a divorce case to the jurisdiction of the family court in Mumbai. This ruling underscores the distinction between the marriage ritual and the legal implications of divorce proceedings, clarifying that mere ceremonial aspects don't determine jurisdiction.

“There is no dispute between the parties that all the rituals of the marriage took place on 7 June, 2015 at Jodhpur, Rajasthan. In Mumbai, there was only a wedding reception on 11 June, 2015. In my view, there can't be any doubt that a wedding reception can't be called as a part of marriage ritual”, the court observed.

Justice Rajesh S Patil granted a woman's request to contest the jurisdiction of the Family Court in Mumbai regarding her husband's divorce petition. The decision was based on the observation that the couple's true last place of joint residence is in the US, thereby indicating that the legal proceedings should be conducted accordingly.

The couple exchanged marriage vows on June 7, 2015, adhering to Hindu customs in Jodhpur. Subsequently, a reception took place on June 11, 2015, at a Mumbai hotel. After the reception, they briefly stayed in Mumbai at the husband's parental residence before relocating to the United States. It's noteworthy that the husband had been living and working in the US prior to the marriage, and the wife joined him there on August 1, 2015.

Despite residing in the US, the couple faced insurmountable differences, resulting in their separation on October 15, 2019. It's important to note that they were still living in the US at the time. Subsequently, on August 6, 2020, the husband initiated divorce proceedings, invoking cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petition was notarized in the US and was filed in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, necessitating its submission through a power of attorney holder, his father.

Expressing her reluctance to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Mumbai Family Court over the divorce proceedings, the wife took action by initiating divorce proceedings in the US on December 10, 2020. This decision highlighted her stance on the matter. Following this, on August 30, 2021, she formally filed an application contesting the validity of her husband's divorce petition in the Mumbai Family Court.

Following the rejection of the wife's application challenging the jurisdiction of the Mumbai Family Court, she proceeded to file a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. This action was taken in response to the Family Court's assertion of jurisdiction over the divorce matter, indicating her appeal for a higher judicial review of the decision.

Advocate Gayatri Gokhale, representing the wife, underscored that both parties' last residence was in the US, thus challenging the jurisdiction of the Mumbai Family Court. Conversely, advocate Siddharth Shah, representing the husband, argued that Mumbai had jurisdiction since it was the last place of their joint residence in India. This indicates a legal dispute regarding the interpretation of residency and its implications on jurisdiction in the divorce proceedings.

Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act outlines the jurisdictional criteria for filing divorce petitions. It specifies that the appropriate jurisdiction can be where the marriage took place, where the parties last lived together, or where the petitioner resides (if the respondent is abroad) or where the respondent currently resides. These parameters help determine the suitable venue for initiating divorce proceedings under the Act.

The court underscored the significance of the 2003 amendment to the Act, which empowered an aggrieved wife to file a petition in the district court where she resides at the time of filing. This legislative amendment aimed to provide greater accessibility and legal recourse to wives seeking relief in matrimonial matters, reflecting evolving social and legal perspectives on gender equality and women's rights.

The court observed that the statute does not explicitly require the last residence to be in India. Therefore, it dismissed the argument that Mumbai was the appropriate jurisdiction solely based on the brief stay of the couple in the city. This interpretation underscores the importance of adhering strictly to the statutory provisions when determining jurisdiction in divorce cases, emphasizing legal clarity and consistency.

In its final ruling, the court determined that the couple's last place of residence together was in the United States, not Mumbai. Consequently, the Family Court in Mumbai did not have jurisdiction to entertain the divorce petition, as per Section 19(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. This decision underscores the critical importance of accurately establishing jurisdiction based on statutory provisions, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal principles in matrimonial disputes.

Thus, the court quashed the impugned judgment and allowed the wife's application challenging the jurisdiction of the Mumbai Family Court.

Advocates Gayatri Gokhale and Sneha Jethwa represented the wife.

Advocates Siddharth Shah and Riya Rele represented the husband.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 8829 of 2023

Case Title – Shikha Lodha v. Suketu Shah and Anr.