In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh, has emphasized that a Family Court cannot unilaterally decline jurisdiction over a case unless there is an objection from the opposite party or a transfer order issued by a superior court. This decision came in response to First Appeal No. 706 of 2024, where the appellant challenged an order from the Family Court, Chandauli, which dismissed a divorce petition.
Background of the Case:
The case originates from a divorce petition filed in the Family Court, Chandauli. The petition, numbered Divorce Petition No. 80 of 2021, was dismissed by the Principal Judge, Sri Rakesh Dhar Dubey, on April 29, 2024. The trial court disposed of the petition, suggesting that the case should be filed in Mumbai or a nearby location, as both parties were residing in Mumbai at the time.
The Family Court’s decision was primarily based on the reasoning that since both parties were living in Mumbai, it would be more convenient for them to pursue the case there. The court also cited the irregular appearances of the parties, which it felt was hampering the trial and violating the principle of natural justice. Consequently, the trial court dismissed the case, giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition in Mumbai.
Legal Issues Involved:
The key legal issue in this case was whether the Family Court, Chandauli, had the jurisdiction to entertain the divorce petition and whether it could dismiss the case based on its own assessment of convenience and the conduct of the parties. The jurisdictional provisions under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, were central to this determination. Section 19 allows a petition to be presented to the district court within whose jurisdiction:
1. The marriage was solemnized.
2. The respondent resides at the time of the petition.
3. The parties last resided together.
4. In cases where the wife is the petitioner, where she resides at the time of filing.
5. The petitioner resides, in case the respondent is residing outside the territorial limits or has not been heard of for seven years.
Decision of the High Court:
The Allahabad High Court, after a detailed examination, set aside the Family Courtโs order. The court observed that the Family Court had acted beyond its jurisdiction by dismissing the petition without any objection from the respondent or a transfer order from a superior court. The High Court noted that:
1. Jurisdictional Mandate: The Family Court, Chandauli, had jurisdiction as per Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The divorce case could have been heard at Chandauli since the marriage was solemnized there and the parties had last resided together at that place.
2. Absence of Objection: The respondent had not objected to the jurisdiction of the Chandauli court. In fact, there was no plea or argument presented by either party that would suggest a lack of jurisdiction or inconvenience due to the location of the court.
3. Trial Courtโs Error: The High Court criticized the trial court for unilaterally deciding to dismiss the case on the grounds of convenience, which was not argued by the parties. The trial court’s decision was seen as an overreach and not aligned with the principles of justice.
4. Importance of Judicial Process: The High Court emphasized that judicial proceedings, especially in matrimonial cases, must be handled with care, ensuring that parties are not deprived of their legal rights due to procedural misjudgments. The court noted that the Family Court had already passed orders on interim maintenance, indicating that the proceedings were well underway.
Also Read
Key Observations:
The High Court made several significant observations during its judgment:
– “It is fundamental to the administration of justice that no court has a lis of its own.”
– “The learned trial court has adopted a laconic and casual approach. Perhaps in its zeal to dispose of the proceedings, it has created reasoning that does not spring from the stand and conduct of the parties.”
– “The learned trial court may have declined to exercise its jurisdiction only in the event of the respondent having raised and pressed the objection as to lack of jurisdiction or where the proceeding may have been transferred to any other district.”
