Subscribe
The Kerala High Court has held that a Christian woman seeking divorce can approach the Family Court where she currently lives, even if her matrimonial home, marriage or husband is in another district. A division bench of Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta AK held that Section 3(3) of the Divorce Act, 1869 must be interpreted to allow a wife to file a divorce petition before the District Court or Family Court having jurisdiction over the place where she resides.
The judgement passed on June 30 came in the case of a woman who had left her matrimonial home in Kasaragod after alleging domestic violence and was living with her parents in Wayanad.
The Court said that restricting her to a court in Kasaragod would amount to discrimination against Christian women, particularly when similar provisions in other matrimonial laws allow women to approach courts where they reside.
The woman had married in Kasaragod and lived with her husband there. After she left her matrimonial home, she returned to her parents' house in Wayanad.
She approached the Family Court in Kalpetta, Wayanad, seeking dissolution of her marriage.
But the Family Court rejected her petition, holding that it did not have territorial jurisdiction. Since the couple had last lived together in Kasaragod, the court held that the case had to be filed there.
The woman challenged this before the High Court.
What does Section 3(3) of the Divorce Act say?
Section 3(3) defines what constitutes a “District Court” for proceedings under the Divorce Act.
It refers to courts within whose jurisdiction:
the marriage was solemnised;
the husband and wife reside; or
the husband and wife last resided together.
The dispute was over the second part — “within whose jurisdiction the husband and wife reside”.
The Bench pointed out that if “where the husband and wife reside” were interpreted only as the place where the husband continues to live, it would effectively make the second and third parts of Section 3(3) mean the same.
In this case, for instance, the couple had last lived together in Kasaragod. The husband continued to live there, while the wife moved to Wayanad.
If the second limb were also treated as referring only to the husband's place of residence, the wife's current place of residence would simply disappear from the provision.
What about women who leave their matrimonial homes?
This was particularly important to the Court because the woman in this case said she had left her matrimonial home after facing domestic violence.
The Court took into account the practical consequences of requiring such a woman to return to the place of her matrimonial home to initiate legal proceedings.
The Bench adopted a purposive interpretation of Section 3(3) — meaning the provision had to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the purpose of the Divorce Act and constitutional guarantees.
The Court also referred to Article 15(3) of the Constitution, which permits the State to make special provisions for women and children as part of achieving substantive gender equality.
The Bench also noted that provisions under other matrimonial statutes had been amended to enable a wife who is the petitioner to approach the court having jurisdiction over the place where she resides.
Against that background, the Court said interpreting the Divorce Act more restrictively for Christian women would result in discriminatory treatment.
What does the Constitution have to do with it?
The judgement goes beyond territorial jurisdiction and places the question within the larger principle of gender equality.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court's 1999 judgement in Gita Hariharan vs Reserve Bank of India, which held that when a statutory provision can be interpreted in two ways, one making it unconstitutional and another keeping it within constitutional limits, courts should prefer the latter interpretation.
The High Court therefore read Section 3(3) in a manner that was consistent with gender equality rather than one that placed an additional procedural burden on Christian women.
The Court also invoked the “always speaking” principle
The Bench referred to the Supreme Court's judgement in Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd vs Union of India, which recognises that laws must be capable of being applied to new social circumstances that may not have been contemplated when the legislation was originally enacted.
That was important here because the Divorce Act is colonial-era legislation, while the constitutional understanding of gender equality has developed considerably since its enactment.
