The Madras High Court has given a ruling that would save the sufferings of several wives who find it difficult fighting matrimonial cases against their husbands living in foreign countries.
The Madras High court held Indian courts have jurisdiction to take up matrimonial proceedings involving two Hindus governed by the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) even in cases where the opposite party is a foreign national having his domicile outside India.
A Division Bench headed by Justices Elipe Dharma Rao and K.K. Sasidharan, dismissing an appeal against a single Judge’s order, in its judgment said when a wife was given the right to initiate proceedings before the local District Court where she was actually residing, such a provision could not be defeated by taking a technical plea that no such proceedings would lie on account of foreign citizenship of the husband or his domicile in another country.
The judges were passing orders on a case involving film actor R Sukanya and her husband R Sridharan, who is an American citizen. They got married in April 17, 2002 as per Hindu rites and customs at Balaji temple in New Jersey in the US. After nearly a year she returned to India, for completing her dance programme. Later, she started to act in films with no plans of returning to the US. She also filed a divorce petition in 2004 before the Principal Family Court, Chennai, on grounds of cruelty.
Sridharan was not aware of the proceedings. He did not attend the proceedings, the family court granted her divorce ex parte in July 2004. After he took steps, the Family Court set aside its order. On his appearance, he filed the counter.
In the meanwhile, Sridharan filed a petition before the Madras High Court seeking a writ of prohibition contending that the Family Court, Chennai, had no jurisdiction to entertain the divorce proceedings as he was a US citizen. The court in India had no jurisdiction.
The actor countered that the marriage was solemnized with Hindu rites and customs. Hence, the rights and obligations of the parties ran from the HMA.
A single Judge said the court in India exercising jurisdiction under the HMA had jurisdiction to entertain the divorce petition irrespective of the present residence of the opposite party. He dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal.
The Bench said that earlier under section 19 HMA (court to which petition shall be presented) it was not possible for a woman to initiate proceedings before the court in whose jurisdiction she was residing. Because of this, serious prejudice was caused to women.
Following an amendment, the wife was now entitled to file a matrimonial petition before the District Court in whose jurisdiction she was residing.
The legislation had to be given an extended coverage even outside the territory to which it ran. When the parties were governed by the HMA, the jurisdiction and the grounds for annulling the marriage should be as provided under the Act.
The domicile or citizenship of the opposite party was immaterial in a case like this. It was the wife’s residence which determined the question of jurisdiction in case the proceedings were initiated at her instance, the Bench said.
As the divorce petition was pending before the Family Court since 2004, the Bench requested the lower court to decide the petition as expeditiously as possible, in any case within two months.
