The Delhi High Court has clarified that the phrase "last resided together" in Section 19(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 refers exclusively to the final place of joint residence before separation, not any earlier matrimonial home. In dismissing a wife's appeal against the return of her divorce petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction, the Division Bench held that the parties' subsequent four-year residence at Gurugram displaced the earlier one-and-a-half-year stay at Sangam Vihar, Delhi, making the Family Court at Delhi incompetent to entertain the petition.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant-wife, Poonam, filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court-02 (South), District Saket Courts, Delhi seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The Family Court returned the petition under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 holding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction under Section 19 of the HMA. The appellant challenged this order by filing the present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Key Facts
- The marriage between the appellant and her husband, Sh. Vimal Prasad, was solemnized on 18.01.2019 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Phool Vatika, Gurugram, Haryana (as per the marriage invitation card).
- After marriage, the parties resided together at the matrimonial home of the husband at Sangam Vihar, Delhi for about one and a half to two years, during which the marriage was consummated and three children were born.
- The husband thereafter secured employment at Gurugram, pursuant to which the parties shifted to a rented accommodation at Gurugram, where they resided together for more than four years.
- About two weeks prior to the filing of the divorce petition (filed in May 2026), the appellant was allegedly turned out of the matrimonial home at Gurugram and has since been residing separately near her parental home with the children, without financial support from the husband.
- The appellant's divorce petition pleaded that the parties resided together at House No. 1807, L-1, Gali No. 5, Near Asthal Mandir, Sangam Vihar, South Delhi, Delhi-110062 for about two years within the jurisdiction of the Family Court.
Procedural History
- May 2026: Divorce petition (HMA No. 849/2026) filed before Family Court-02 (South), Saket Courts, Delhi.
- 14.05.2026: Family Court passed the impugned order returning the petition under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before the appropriate court, holding that the parties last resided together at Gurugram.
- Present appeal (MAT.APP.(F.C.) 285/2026) filed before the High Court of Delhi challenging the impugned order.
- 11.08.2026: Appeal reserved for judgment.
- 07.09.2026: Judgment pronounced.
The Parties' Positions
Appellant: Contended that the residence at Sangam Vihar, Delhi for about one and a half to two years immediately after marriage was a substantial period of cohabitation and could not be treated as merely transient. It was argued that Section 19(iii) HMA does not mandate that the residence be the last in point of time; rather, any place where the parties resided together as husband and wife within the court's jurisdiction would suffice. Reliance was placed on Renu Vij v. Surinder Kumar, C.M.(M) No. 251/1984, Balvinder Kaur v. Mukul Kumar Srivastava, 2008 SCC OnLine All 1188, and Vijay Singh v. Chanchal Chaudhary, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 2218.
Respondent (State NCT of Delhi): No appearance. The respondent-husband, against whom the original divorce petition was filed, was not impleaded as a party to the appeal.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought setting aside of the impugned order dated 14.05.2026 and restoration of the divorce petition before the Family Court at Delhi for adjudication on merits.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 19(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - which confers jurisdiction on the district court within whose local limits "the parties to the marriage last resided together" - refers to any previous place of joint residence or exclusively to the final place of joint residence before separation.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant submitted that the parties' residence at Sangam Vihar, Delhi for about one and a half to two years immediately after marriage was a substantial period of cohabitation and could not be treated as merely transient. It was argued that Section 19(iii) HMA does not mandate that the residence be the last in point of time; rather, any place where the parties resided together as husband and wife within the court's jurisdiction would suffice. Reliance was placed on Renu Vij v. Surinder Kumar, C.M.(M) No. 251/1984, Balvinder Kaur v. Mukul Kumar Srivastava, 2008 SCC OnLine All 1188, and Vijay Singh v. Chanchal Chaudhary, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 2218.
For the Respondent
The State NCT of Delhi did not appear. The respondent-husband was not impleaded in the appeal. The Court noted the defect in the array of parties, observing that the appeal challenging an order in divorce proceedings between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband could not be maintained against the State of NCT of Delhi.
The Court's Analysis
The Division Bench began by noting the procedural defect: the appeal was filed against the State of NCT of Delhi instead of the respondent-husband, rendering it not maintainable. Nevertheless, the Court proceeded to consider the merits.
The Court examined Section 19 of the HMA, which enumerates five alternative jurisdictional grounds. The focus was on clause (iii): "the parties to the marriage last resided together". The Court emphasized the statutory expression "last resided together", holding that the word "last" makes the final place of joint residence determinative.
From the appellant's own pleadings in the divorce petition, the factual timeline was clear:
- Parties resided together at Sangam Vihar, Delhi for around one and a half to two years after marriage (from ~January 2019).
- They then shifted to Gurugram and resided together there for more than four years until two weeks before filing the petition in May 2026.
The Court held that merely relying on the earlier residence at Sangam Vihar could not confer territorial jurisdiction when the parties admittedly last resided together at Gurugram. The requirement under Section 19(iii) is that the parties must have last resided together within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
The Court distinguished the precedents relied upon by the appellant:
"None of the judgement lay down that any place where the parties had earlier resided together would confer jurisdiction under Section 19(iii) of the HMA irrespective of their subsequent residence. On the contrary, the statutory expression 'the parties to the marriage last resided together' makes the last place of such joint residence determinative."
The Court found the impugned order correctly recorded that the parties last resided together at Gurugram, not at Sangam Vihar, Delhi.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed on both maintainability and merits. The Court held that the Family Court at Delhi lacked territorial jurisdiction under Section 19(iii) HMA because the parties last resided together at Gurugram, Haryana. The impugned order dated 14.05.2026 returning the petition under Order VII Rule 10 CPC was upheld. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
"Last Resided Together" Means Final Joint Residence
The judgment establishes a clear interpretive rule: the phrase "last resided together" in Section 19(iii) HMA refers exclusively to the final place of cohabitation before separation. An earlier matrimonial home, however substantial the period of stay, is displaced by a subsequent joint residence. Practitioners must identify the last shared residence with precision when drafting petitions and framing jurisdictional averments.
Jurisdictional Averments Must Align With Pleaded Facts
The Court relied on the appellant's own pleadings to determine the last place of residence. This underscores that jurisdictional facts pleaded in the petition are binding on the petitioner. Lawyers should ensure that the petition's factual narrative - particularly the timeline of residences - is consistent with the jurisdictional clause invoked. Contradictory averments will be fatal.
Defect in Array of Parties Is Fatal
The appeal was dismissed on maintainability because the respondent-husband was not impleaded. In matrimonial appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, the necessary party is the spouse against whom the original petition was filed, not the State. Filing against the State instead of the husband renders the appeal incompetent. Practitioners must verify the correct respondent before filing.
