advocatemmmohan

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Interference on question of territorial jurisdiction – Scope – Held, disputed question of fact relating to last residence of parties cannot be adjudicated in supervisory jurisdiction – Proper remedy is before Trial Court – Civil Revision closed – Para 3, 5

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 19 – Territorial jurisdiction – Plea that parties never resided together within jurisdiction – Allegation of false jurisdictional averment – Whether High Court to decide under Article 227 – Held, such factual controversy must be examined by Trial Court on evidence – Para 3

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 151 – Stay of proceedings – Consequential closure upon dismissal/closure of main CRP – Para 5

JUDGMENT

1. Facts (Para 1–2)

The respondent/wife instituted H.M.O.P. No. 266 of 2023 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet seeking dissolution of marriage.

The petitioner/husband invoked Article 227 of the Constitution contending:

The marriage was performed at Nellore.
The respondent is presently residing in the United States of America.
There is no averment that the parties resided together at Narasaraopet.
The statement in the jurisdiction clause that the parties last resided together at Narasaraopet (in the house of respondent’s great grandmother) is false.

The relief sought was a declaration that the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet has no territorial jurisdiction and for return/dismissal of the HMOP.

2. Issue for Consideration

Whether the High Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, can adjudicate a disputed question of fact regarding territorial jurisdiction in a matrimonial proceeding?

3. Findings (Para 3)

The Court held:

The correctness of the respondent’s statement regarding last residence is a question of fact.
Such factual determination must be undertaken by the Trial Court.
The petitioner is at liberty to raise all jurisdictional objections before the Trial Court.
The Trial Court is competent to adjudicate such objections.

4. Order (Para 5)

The Civil Revision Petition was closed, leaving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Trial Court for appropriate remedy.
No order as to costs.
Pending interlocutory applications stood closed.

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

A. Nature of Jurisdictional Objection

Under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a petition may be presented:

Where the marriage was solemnized;
Where the respondent resides;
Where parties last resided together;
In certain circumstances, where the wife resides.

The petitioner disputes the existence of “last residence together” at Narasaraopet.

However, such an assertion is fact-dependent and requires:

Pleading scrutiny
Possible evidence
Adjudication at trial level

The High Court correctly treated it as a mixed question of fact and law.

B. Scope of Article 227 Jurisdiction

Article 227 confers supervisory—not appellate—jurisdiction.

Interference is warranted only where:

There is patent lack of jurisdiction, or
Grave procedural irregularity, or
Perversity apparent on record.

Here:

Jurisdiction depends upon factual determination.
No patent lack of jurisdiction was demonstrable on the face of pleadings.

Thus, supervisory intervention was declined.

C. Procedural Principle Applied

Where jurisdictional facts are disputed:

Trial Court must first determine them.
High Court does not pre-empt factual adjudication.
Alternative efficacious remedy before subordinate court must be exhausted.

This aligns with settled principles limiting Article 227 interference.

RATIO DECIDENDI

When territorial jurisdiction in a matrimonial proceeding depends upon a disputed question of fact (such as last residence of parties), the High Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, will not adjudicate such factual controversy. The appropriate course is to permit the Trial Court to determine the jurisdictional objection.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN

Tuesday, February 17, 2026