TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Jurisdiction in Marriage Nullity Petitions: Actual Residence Key. Appeal Allowed.</h1> <h3>Jeewanti Pandey Versus Kishan Chandra Pandey</h3> The Supreme Court held that the District Judge, Almora, did not have jurisdiction to entertain a petition for nullity of marriage under s. 12 of the Hindu ... - Issues:Jurisdiction of the Court of the District Judge, Almora to entertain a petition for nullity of marriage under s. 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the Court of the District Judge, Almora to entertain a petition for nullity of marriage under s. 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent filed the petition in Almora, alleging that the parties were residents of a village within Almora's jurisdiction. However, the appellant challenged this jurisdiction, arguing that the court in Delhi had jurisdiction as the marriage was solemnized there, and the parties last resided together in Delhi. The Subordinate Judge in Delhi had already decreed the appellant's suit for restitution of conjugal rights under s. 9 of the Act, which was not appealed. The appellant's residence with her uncle in Delhi was a crucial point in determining jurisdiction.The District Judge, Almora, initially held that he had jurisdiction based on the parties' original residence in a village within his jurisdiction. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the respondent was ordinarily residing in the village within Almora's jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation. The Court analyzed the concept of 'residence' under s. 19 of the Act, emphasizing that mere temporary stays do not constitute residence. The Court clarified that residence must be more permanent in nature, with a fixed home or abode. The actual place of residence at the commencement of the proceedings is crucial in determining jurisdiction.The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in upholding the finding of the District Judge regarding jurisdiction. The Court directed the District Judge, Almora, to return the petition for nullity of marriage to the respondent for presentation to the proper court, i.e., the Court of the District Judge, Delhi. The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and no costs were awarded. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of actual residence in determining jurisdiction in matrimonial matters under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
