Madras High Court Grants Mutual-Consent Divorce Despite Territorial Objection

A Family Court's dismissal of a consensual divorce petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction after recording evidence

The couple married under the Special Marriage Act in 2008 and later agreed to separate. Their marriage, matrimonial home and the wife's residence were in Trichy, while the husband worked as a Munsiff Judge in Thanjavur. Both filed jointly there for convenience.

Issue and applicable law

The central question was a Family Court's dismissal of a consensual divorce petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction after recording evidence.

The Court stressed facilitative handling of consensual matrimonial litigation and the importance of the wife's convenience. Completion of evidence did not eliminate the CPC power to return a proceeding.

Court's reasoning

The Court held that the court should have returned rather than dismissed the petition and, on the facts, was obliged to entertain the jointly presented case. Its principal reason was that territorial jurisdiction was technical, a plaint may be returned at any stage, and the wife had deliberately chosen the forum where her husband worked.

Decision and practical effect

The order was set aside and the High Court granted the parties mutual-consent divorce.

The ruling is significant because it clarifies how the stated legal standard should be applied to comparable disputes without extending the decision beyond the facts reported by the source.

Case details

• Case: APS v. NIL
• Court: Madras High Court
• Case number or citation: CMA (MD) No. 1272 of 2026; 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 432
• Judges: Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi
• Advocates: For petitioner: M. Rajarajan
• Source: https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-family-order-lack-of-territorial-jurisdiction-set-aside-549112