Court holds that "last residence together" under Section 19(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act determines territorial jurisdiction; earlier residence in Delhi insufficient when parties last lived together in Gurugram.
In a significant judgment dated September 7, 2026, the Delhi High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar) dismissed an appeal filed by Poonam challenging the Family Court's order that the Delhi Family Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain her divorce petition against her husband, Vimal Prasad.
The case centered on the interpretation of Section 19(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which governs the territorial jurisdiction for filing matrimonial petitions. The law states that such petitions must be presented to the district court where the parties to the marriage last resided together.
Facts revealed that the couple solemnized their marriage on January 18, 2019, in Gurugram, Haryana. Post-marriage, the couple lived together at the husband's matrimonial home in Sangam Vihar, Delhi, for approximately one and a half to two years. Subsequently, they shifted to Gurugram due to the husband's employment, residing there for over four years until shortly before the divorce petition was filed in May 2026. The wife alleged cruelty during the marriage, particularly due to the husband's alcohol consumption.
The Family Court at Delhi had returned the petition under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction since the couple's last joint residence was Gurugram, not Delhi. The wife contested this, arguing that the earlier significant residence in Delhi was sufficient to confer jurisdiction to Delhi courts.
The Delhi High Court upheld the Family Court's view, clarifying that the statutory phrase "last resided together" is determinative for jurisdictional purposes. The Court emphasized that a prior residence, no matter how prolonged, does not override a subsequent and more recent joint residence. Since the couple last lived together in Gurugram, the proper jurisdiction for the divorce petition was there, not Delhi.
Additionally, the Court noted a procedural defect: the appeal was filed against the State of NCT of Delhi instead of the respondent husband, Vimal Prasad, who was the actual party in the divorce proceedings. The Court observed that such appeals challenging divorce orders must implead the respondent spouse as a party. This defect rendered the appeal not maintainable on procedural grounds as well.
The Court further clarified that the appellant's reliance on precedents such as Renu Vij v. Surinder Kumar and Balvinder Kaur v. Mukul Kumar Srivastava was misplaced, as none held that earlier residences confer jurisdiction regardless of later joint residences.
The appeal was dismissed both on grounds of maintainability and merits. This judgment reinforces the principle that for matrimonial jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act, the last place where the spouses resided together is decisive, thereby providing clarity on territorial jurisdiction in divorce matters.
Bottom Line:
Hindu Marriage Act - Territorial jurisdiction under Section 19(iii) - Determination of "last resided together" - Mere earlier residence at a location does not confer jurisdiction if parties subsequently resided together elsewhere.
Statutory provision(s):
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 19(iii); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order VII Rule 10; Family Courts Act, 1984 Section 19 (appeal provision)
Poonam v. State NCT of Delhi, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2973645
