The Allahabad High Court recently criticized the Family Court in Chandauli that dismissed a divorce petition based on assumptions about jurisdiction without proper legal procedure.

The Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh ruled that family courts at two different locations with concurrent jurisdiction can only decline a case if there is a specific objection raised by the other party or if a higher court has ordered a transfer of the proceedings.

The case involves an appellant-husband who filed a divorce petition in the Family Court in Chandauli, Uttar Pradesh. The Family Court, however, dismissed the petition on the grounds that the parties were living in or near Mumbai and that a fresh divorce petition should be filed in a court closer to their residence. The Family Court made this decision in the absence of the parties, which was later challenged in the Allahabad High Court.

The Court noted that the appellant had clearly stated in the divorce petition that the marriage was solemnized in Chandauli and that Chandauli was the last place where the couple had resided together. The permanent addresses of the parties were listed as Chandauli and Jaunpur in the petition, which supported the jurisdiction of the Chandauli Family Court. However, in the written statement, the respondent contested the jurisdiction, arguing that the parties were residing in and around Mumbai.

Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, outlines the jurisdiction for divorce proceedings. It grants jurisdiction to courts that have ordinary civil authority over the place where the marriage was solemnized, where the couple last resided together, where the respondent resides at the time of filing the petition, or where the petitioner resides if the respondent is living outside India or has not been seen or heard from in the last seven years.

The Division Bench observed that the Family Court in Chandauli dismissed the petition without properly framing the issue of jurisdiction and without giving the parties an opportunity to press or rebut the jurisdictional objection. The Family Court’s decision was based merely on the written statement, which the High Court found to be an inadequate basis for such a dismissal.

"In the present facts, over a period of three years not only pleadings have been exchanged but also mediation has been conducted and order have been passed for award of interim maintenance. The stage was set for framing of issues and evidence to be led. Instead of putting the parties to terms to ensure their prompt and continued participation in the proceedings so that the divorce case proceedings could have been concluded in a time bound manner, the learned trial court has put the blame on the parties and refused to decide the dispute. It has thus thrown out the proceedings, completely. The approach of the learned trial court is far from what may find our acceptance, ever," the Court said.

The Bench strongly criticized the Family Court's approach. It noted that statutory law clearly permitted the parties to file the divorce case in Chandauli. The Court also pointed out that once the pleadings had been exchanged and the parties had been heard regarding interim maintenance, the Family Court's decision to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction was contrary to the spirit of the Hindu Marriage Act and undermined the process of justice dispensation. The Court emphasized that the Family Court should have issued notice to the parties and followed proper procedure before dismissing the petition.

The Court also addressed the broader issue of delays in matrimonial cases, noting that these delays are often due to a shortage of judicial officers, inefficiencies within the legal profession, and the hardship and approach of the parties involved. The Court emphasized the need for matrimonial cases to be dealt with in a timely manner, but also acknowledged the challenges that often impede the swift resolution of such cases.

"It is true that all judicial proceedings especially matrimonial case may be dealt with in a time bound frame and undue adjournment may not be granted as a rule or a regular practice. At the same time, as an appeal court, we may not loose sight of the reality that exists and in the environment in which Family Courts function. Long pendency of cases, shortage of judicial officers, less than efficient Bar and also at times hardship and approach of the parties alongwith other factors cumulatively contribute to delays," the Court said.

Conclusively, the Court ordered, "Accordingly, the order dated 29.04.2024 passed by Sri Rakesh Dhar Dubey, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli is set aside. The matter is remitted to the said authority to pass a fresh order. The appellant undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings as may ensure prompt conclusion of the same."

Cause Title: Vinay Kumar v. Suman [Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:123536-DB]

Appearance:-

Applicant: Advocate Pankaj Baranwa

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Saumitra Dayal SinghJustice Donadi RameshAllahabad High CourtHindu Marriage Act 1955

Sukriti Mishra