International Family Law|Telangana High Court|Santoshi Pattern V. Vijay Kumar Gurramkonda|Wife Contends OCI Status + US Citizenship precludes Indian Court Jurisdiction in Divorce & Child Custody

Confused about where your case stands?

Get a Preparatory Assessment : Factual, Sharp and Tailored to your situation

📄 Get a crisp, slide-based summary of the judgment.

Download the Visual Carousel (PDF)

Wife Contends OCI Status + US Citizenship precludes Indian Court Jurisdiction in her Divor.

Download • 4.59MB

Follow us on LinkedIn for real, practical family-law insights that matter.

---

Telangana High Court – Civil Revision Petition No: 211/2024 - Date of Order : 23.10.2025

Justice Renuka Yara

Santoshi Pattern (Appelant) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gurramkonda (Respondent)

Reason: The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 18.12.2023 in I.A.No.1371 of 2023 in F.C.O.P.No.808 of 2022 passed by the learned VI Additional District Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, ('trial Court'), wherein petition was filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of C.P.C. with a prayer to reject the plaint/petition.

Brief Facts: The husband filed F.C.O.P.No.808 of 2022 seeking decree of divorce. The F.C.O.P. was filed on 12.12.2022 on the ground of cruelty and extraction of money by the wife and her family members, more particularly brother of the wife. Initially, the marriage of the parties took place in Sikh Village, Secunderabad, and thereafter, both the parties have lived in United States of America (USA) for eleven years. Thereafter, the parties have moved to India on permanent basis in June, 2022, by liquidating all the assets in the USA and settled down in Gachibowli, Hyderabad. During the said time period, there were disputes more particularly on the part of the wife pressurizing the husband to invest in the business started by her brother. This conduct on the part of the wife amounted to cruelty. The wife had obtained no contact order from USA Court on 02.11.2022, wherein the Court directed the husband not to contact the wife and her children through phone, email or any mode of communication. In view of the cruelty meted out by the wife, the husband filed F.C.O.P.No.808 of 2022 seeking divorce. In the said F.C.O.P., I.A. under revision is filed to reject the F.C.O.P. under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of C.P.C. for suppression of material facts such as domicile criteria, residential status and fraudulent documentation. The primary ground cited for rejection of F.C.O.P. is that both the parties are residents of USA and have resided in jurisdiction of Trial Court for a temporary period of six months only. There are legal proceedings being prosecuted in USA for child custody and divorce and by suppressing the said facts, the present F.C.O.P.is filed. It is contended by the wife herein that since both the parties are domicile of USA, the Trial Court does not have jurisdiction to try F.C.O.P.

Per contra, the case of the husband is that though they have lived in USA for eleven years, they have permanently shifted to India by liquidating all the assets in USA. The children were admitted into international school in Serilingampally and immovable property has been purchased in Gachibowli for residential purpose by incurring huge debt running into crores of rupees. While things stood thus, the wife left India along with two children without the knowledge and consent of the husband. Since then he is residing in the jurisdiction of the Trial Court, therefore, the Trial Court has jurisdiction to try F.C.O.P. Further, it is his case that overseas citizens are entitled to file case in India and therefore, there is no bar on his filing F.C.O.P. in the jurisdiction of the Trial Court.

Upon examining the case of both the parties, the Trial Court dismissed the petition leading to filing of the present revision.

Wife’s contentions before the Hon’ble High Court:

In grounds of revision, it is contended that both the parties are citizens of USA, they have given up domicile of India and therefore, the Trial Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the F.C.O.P. The wife has already filed petition in Utah Court, USA for child custody and divorce, which has permanent jurisdiction over the wife. The Trial Court erred in relying solely on the averments made in the F.C.O.P. by holding that as on the date of filing of the F.C.O.P., the wife was residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court overlooking the fact that the wife is citizen of USA and casually stayed at Gachibowli. The F.C.O.P. is filed with sole purpose of harassing the wife by obtaining Aadhar cards of the minor children by misrepresenting to the Indian Authorities. The children were born in USA and have Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cards and aadhar cards can be granted only after six months of stay in India, but the children stayed only for five months and never gave biometrics and other requirements of aadhar card. As per Section 2 (v) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and Section 2 (v) of the Aadhar (Targeted Delivery of Financial, and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, one must reside in India for a period of 182 days even to be considered as a resident. It is pleaded that the husband created an illusory cause of action by making it appear as if the wife was a domicile of India, whereas she spent more than thirteen years in USA. In view of the aforementioned grounds, the wife prayed to set aside the impugned order and reject the F.C.O.P.

Reference is made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in T. Arivandandam v. T. V. Satyapal, Smt. Surinder Kaur Sandhu v. Harbax Singh Sandhu, Dahiben v. Aravindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, K. Akbar Ali v. K. Umar Khan, Abdus Samad v. State of West Bengal and Jeewanti Pandey v. Kishan Chandra Pandey. The judgments of Delhi High Court in Sanjana Sharma v. Ashok Sharma and Jasmeet Kaur v. Navtej Singh were also referred.

Husband’s contentions before the Hon’ble High Court:

The husband filed his counter affidavit claiming that both parties are OCI card holders and said cards do not affect the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and therefore, The trial Court has to entertain F.C.O.P. as both the parties got OCI cards in the year 2019 and both of them last lived together in territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court. The husband contended that their marriage dispute has to be adjudicated as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by the Courts in India and therefore, the Trial Court has jurisdiction. Referring to the divorce proceedings in the Courts at USA, the husband pleaded that after the F.C.O.P. was filed before the Trial Court, the wife moved the Utah Court and there were no parallel proceedings when the F.C.O.P. was filed on 12.12.2022. The children were admitted into Sancta Maria International School, Hyderabad, and a car was also purchased. All the movable assets in USA were relocated through Universal Relocation Shipping Company to Hyderabad. Further, rejection of plaint has to be granted on the basis of averments of the F.C.O.P. without looking into contents of the written statement filed by the wife to the O.P. i.e., wife herein. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the present revision petition by referring to the judgments in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Limited v. M.V. Sea Success I, Dahiben (cited supra), Madhavi Sirothia v. N.N. Sirothi, P.V. Gururaj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy, Michael Graham Prince v. Nisha Misra  and Anushka Rengunthwar v. Union of India.

The settled principle in deciding of petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. is that the plaint averments alone have to be taken into consideration along with the documents filed with the plaint. The pleadings of the written statement or the documents filed by the respondent/defendant cannot be taken into consideration. Such being the case, only the contents of the F.C.O.P. filed by the husband have to be considered for deciding whether or not to reject the F.C.O.P. One of the grounds cited is that an illusory cause of action is created and reference is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam (cited supra).

Hon’ble High Court’s Observations:

Having perused the pleadings of both the parties this Court is of the considered view that there is cause of action on account of marital disputes between the parties. The husband has filed F.C.O.P.No.808 of  2022 on the ground of cruelty on the part of the wife, her brother and her family members. Similarly, the wife has moved the Courts of Utah, USA, seeking custody of children and divorce. The wife has obtained no contact order dated 23.11.2022 from Utah Court restraining husband from contacting wife through phone, email or any other mode of communication. These admitted facts clearly show that there are marital disputes and therefore, there is cause of action for filing F.C.O.P. Therefore, there is no ground of rejection of F.C.O.P. under Order VII Rule 11 (a) for lack of cause of action.

The next ground to be examined is whether the F.C.O.P. is barred under Order VII Rule 11 (d) for lack of jurisdiction. The case of the wife is that both the parties are citizens of USA and therefore, the Courts in India do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the F.C.O.P.

Per contra, the case of the husband is that they have lived in USA for about eleven years and they have shifted permanently to India by liquidating all the assets in USA. They were issued with OCI cards and therefore, he is entitled to file F.C.O.P. in India in the jurisdiction of the Trial Court, where they have last resided together. Further, the children are admitted into school in India for education.

The facts about the citizenship of the parties have to be considered as per the averments of the F.C.O.P. and not as per the contents of the counter/written statement of the wife. A bare reading of the F.C.O.P. shows that the husband is claiming to be resident of Gachibowli and Gachibowli is the last place of residence of the parties and therefore, the Trial Court has jurisdiction. In case, the Trial Court lacks jurisdiction, the said fact cannot be decided in the I.A. under revision as evidence has to be adduced and enquiry has to be done about the citizenship of the parties and their residence to file F.C.O.P. in India before the Trial Court. Therefore, this Court sees no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 18.12.2023 in I.A.No.1371 of 2023 in F.C.O.P.No.808 of 2022 on the file of the Trial Court.