Section 19 of HMA Act-

If the marriage was solemnized in Haryana; the husband and wife last resided together in the year 2011
in Pune and now husband wishes to file for divorce in Delhi, will the petition be maintainable in Delhi as
the wife resides in Pune?

Section 19 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 states five points regarding the matter.

Court to which petition shall be presented. —Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the
district court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction—

(i) the marriage was solemnized(as mentioned in the matter above HARYANA) or

(ii) the respondent i.e. WIFE, at the time of the presentation of the petition, resides, or

(iii) the parties to the marriage last resided together (AS MENTIONED ABOVE IN PUNE ) or

[(iiia) in case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition,
or]

(iv) the petitioner(HUSBAND) is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where
the respondent (WIFE) is, at that time, residing outside the territories to which this Act extends, or has
not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would
naturally have heard of him if he were alive.]

Jurisdiction of the Court - If a marriage is solemnised at a place within the municipal limit and the party
reside there only, the family Court would have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with case.

Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 enables the petitioner to present the petition under this Act
at his or her option at any of the places specified in clauses (i) to (iv) and, therefore, if the petition so
presented falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, then the Family Court of that area
would have the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and try that petition under Section 8 of the Act and
such pending proceedings would also stand transferred to such Family Court.

AND if it doesnot fall within the exclusive jurisdiction , the petition will not be maintainable in delhi.

.Section 19(iiia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, enumerates that in case, the wife is the petitioner,
petition under this Act shall be presented to the district court within the local limits of whose ordinary
original civil jurisdiction, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition. But here the
husband is the petitioner and so the petition will not be maintainable in delhi as his wife resides in pune.

The domicile or citizenship of the opposite party is immaterial in a case like this. In case the marriage
was solemnized under Hindu Law marital relationship is governed by the provisions of the Hindu
Marriage Act. Therefore, Section 19 has to be given a purposeful interpretation. It is the residence of the
wife, which determines the question of jurisdiction, in case the proceeding was initiated at the instance
of the wife.
Cases where due to transferable nature of husband's job, a divorce petition, on jurisdiction other than
what is specified under HMA, has been allowed.

SHRUTI KAUSHAL BISHT VS. KAUSHAL R BISHT- Husband has filed a petition for divorce in Maharashtra
while the wife resists in Delhi. Petition for Transfer of the case into Delhi Family due to financial
inculpability. https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/shruti-kaushal-bisht-v-kaushal-r-bisht-2020-
transfer-of-matrimonial-case-4925.asp

In the Order passed in the matrimonial case- Shruti Kaushal Bisht v. Kaushal R. Bisht on November 6,
2020, Justice V. Ramasubramanian, at the Supreme Court, has considered that the claim of the wife
Shruti that she is not receiving maintenance, has not been disputed, therefore considering the fact that
the marriage was also solemnized in Delhi the wife's petition for transferring the case to Delhi deserves
to be allowed and husband Kaushal's petition deserves dismissal. The SC has noted that the first transfer
petition is by the wife seeking transfer of the divorce petition filed by the husband in the Family Court at
Pune, Maharashtra and the second transfer petition is by the husband seeking transfer of the petition
for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the wife before the Family Court at Saket, New Delhi.

SAPNA GEHLOT W/O DEVENDRA SINGH … VS STAE OF GUJARAT ON 27 JANUARY, 2022 –

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50036233/

By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-mother is
praying for the writ of habeas corpus by urging to this Court to produce her minor children namely Leon
Gillian Singh Gehlot, Paurush Singh Gehlot and Thaarun Singh Gehlot. Minor children and mother are all
citizens of New Zealand and father has a status of permanent resident of New-Zealand. The petitioner
seeks an order of return of minor children in consonance with the guardianship order dated 04.10.2019
passed by the High Court of New Zealand in SG vs. GSG, (2019) NZHC 2523 and other order dated
11.10.2019 on the ground that the children's removal and retention in India by the respondent Nos.2, 3
and 4 is completely illegal and wrong.