Shanawas vs Sabitha K. M.

R. Basant, J.—This appeal is directed against the impugned order under which the court below returned a petition filed by the appellant/husband u/s 24(1) of the Special Marriage Act on the ground that jurisdiction vests not with the Family Court at Kasaragode u/s 31 of the Special Marriage Act.

This appeal has now come up for admission hearing. The learned Counsel for the appellant was requested to explain how the impugned order can be faulted. u/s 31(1) of the Special Marriage Act, the proceedings can be initiated at the venues described under Clauses 31(i) to (iv) including Clause iii (a). The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that petition would be maintainable before the Family Court at Kasaragode relying only on Clause (iii) which shows that proceedings can be initiated within the local limits of whose original civil jurisdiction, "parties to the marriage last resided together".

The marriage was one under the Special Marriage Act. The marriage was solemnised at Chennai, where both parties were residing and were employed. Subsequent to the marriage, the husband had taken up employment abroad and the wife had joined him there. They came back from the place of employment abroad obviously with differences of opinion. They are alleged to have stayed one night at Kasaragode at the residence of the appellant. Thereafter on the very next date, the wife went to her place of residence in Chennai. The court below felt that this overnight residence for one day cannot give Kasaragode the status of the place where parties to the marriage last resided together. The casual residence/stay for one night at Kasaragode cannot clothe that venue with the qualification of the place of last residence, held the court below. The court below, in these circumstances, took the view that the court at Kasaragode does not legitimately have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition for declaration of nullity u/s 24 of the Special Marriage Act.

Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned order, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the spouses had together resided at Kasaragode, though admittedly only for one day. We are satisfied that such residence for one night at Kasargode on their return from abroad by the wife on her way to Chennai cannot justify the initiation of proceedings before the Family Court at Kasaragode with the aid of Section 31(1)(iii) of the Special Marriage Act. The conclusion of the court below does appear to be eminently fair and reasonable. Moreover we find the decision to be absolutely just. The same caters to the interests of justice eminently. At any rate, we are not satisfied that the appellate jurisdiction u/s 19 of the Family Courts Act needs to be or deserves to be invoked against the impugned order.

This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed in limine.