VINAY KUMAR V. SUMAN, 2024 (AB) 500
FACTS:The appellant, Vinay Kumar, filed a divorce petition in Chandauli, clearly stating both parties' permanent and current addresses. Vinay’s permanent address was in Chandauli, while the respondents was in Jaunpur. Both parties' current address was listed as Mumbai. Vinay asserted that they were married at his permanent address in Chandauli and that they last resided there. However, the Principal Judge of the Family Court in Chandauli dismissed the petition in the absence of the parties, claiming that since they were living in or near Mumbai, a new petition should be filed there for the convenience of both parties. This decision was subsequently challenged in the High Court.
Issue: Can a Family Court decline jurisdiction only upon the objection of the opposing party or through a transfer order from a superior court?
OBSERVATION:The Allahabad High Court ruled that when two Family Courts have concurrent jurisdiction over divorce proceedings, one may only refuse to entertain a petition on jurisdictional grounds if a specific objection is raised by the other party or if a superior court has issued a transfer order. The Court criticized the Family Court for making assumptions about the parties’ hardships in traveling to Chandauli without any evidence of such difficulties. It was deemed unacceptable that the Family Court dismissed the case after three years solely due to jurisdiction, without considering the merits of the situation. Additionally, the dismissal invalidated the earlier interim maintenance order. The Court found the Family Court's actions unsatisfactory and remanded the case back to the Chandauli Family Court for an expedited resolution.
