Mumbai Family Court Has Jurisdiction in NRI Marriage Under Hindu Marriage Act -Sondur Rajini v. Sondur Gopal (2005)

In Sondur Rajini v. Sondur Gopal, the wife filed a petition for judicial separation, custody of minor children, and maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA). The NRI husband objected, claiming that both parties were citizens of Sweden and not domiciled in India, and therefore the Mumbai Family Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 1(2) of the HMA.

The wife argued that their domicile of origin was India, which she had never abandoned, and that even if the husband acquired Swedish domicile, she continued her Indian domicile. Additionally, both parties had later moved to Australia, reviving their Indian domicile of origin. She contended that citizenship and domicile are independent, and that Section 19 of the HMA allows courts to entertain petitions based on residence, not domicile alone.

The Court upheld the wife’s arguments, noting that the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 2003 enabled wives to file petitions where they were residing at the time of filing. A close reading of Sections 1, 2, and 19 of the HMA showed that residence coupled with Indian domicile is sufficient for court jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that once the Hindu Marriage Act applies, it continues to govern the marriage, including dissolution, regardless of subsequent changes in domicile.

The Court also introduced the principle of “once competent, always competent”, meaning that a party domiciled in India at the time of marriage cannot evade Indian court jurisdiction later by changing domicile. This ensures protection for wives against unilateral attempts by husbands to shift their personal law to another country, preventing potential social and legal hardship.

The judgment reinforces that Indian courts retain jurisdiction over NRI marriages when parties were domiciled in India at the time of marriage, safeguarding the rights and welfare of Indian wives and children.