Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Nitin (Law)     19 September 2013

Indian Domicile must for Hindu Marriage Act

https://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-domicile-proof-must-for-hindu-marriage-act-to-apply/1/298045.html


Learning

 4 Replies

**Victim** (job)     19 September 2013

Is it possible if you can share entire judgement ?

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     20 September 2013

I differ to opinion expressed in the judgment.

 Nevertheless PFA.

 


Attached File : 359534076 sc in 2013 says domicile of india is a must to apply hma.pdf downloaded: 219 times
1 Like

Nitin (Law)     20 September 2013

@Tajobsindia

 

The attached PFA is not the case mentioned on the link

 

Hope you are aware about case of Tamil Actress Sukanya and Sridharan 

 

It is a well settled law that in order to apply the provision of the Hindu Marriage Act, both the parties must be domiciles of India and it is not enough that only one of the parties is a domicile of India.

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     20 September 2013

 

Originally posted by : Nitin

 

https://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-domicile-proof-must-for-hindu-marriage-act-to-apply/1/298045.html

 

 

1.    Are you sure J

2.    Is below copied link not your above stated link ?

https://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-domicile-proof-must-for-hindu-marriage-act-to-apply/1/298045.html

3.    If yes then click it and read 3rd / 4th. para and then last para of the news reporting from your own stated link ! What does it say and what does PFA 32 pages of Hon’ble SC judgment says?


4.    In R Sridharan Vs. R. Sukanya case which you are reminding me, Hon’ble SC rejected the plea of Sukanya’s husband  (he said and I quote him ‘parties were married in NJ hence Indian Courts have no jurisdiction to take up divorce case which from Madras HC went to SC’) and there a Bench of Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan, however, in a very terse Order said it was "keeping open the question of law” to be decided in future cases, so kindly tell forum what parallel you are drawing now?

[Notes -
Sukanya was present in the court during the hearing of the case for the past two days and attitude of sari, sindoor and glycerin were evident to everyone present in those two days in Court room so the Hon’ble SC said what Lordships Bench have to say in above bold underline wordings and directed the matrimonial court to dispose of the divorce petition within four months as the case has been pending since 2004.


Domicile and place of marriage are two diverse inter-changeable question of Law. In Swedish wife's case PFA is clear on that and Lordships Bench actually took pain in answering question of Law based on parties facts whereas in Chennai cine actors from Madras case it was hurriedly remanded back to trial Court to dispose off in 4 months without touching question of law and left that question to be decided in future case.]

[EOD]

 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register