Sondur Gopal v. Sondur Rajni, AIR 2013 SC 2678
Bench – V. Gopala Gowda, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, JJ.
Delivered on July 15, 2013
Facts:
The case involved Sondur Gopal (husband) and Sondur Rajni (wife), who were married in 1989 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in India.
After marriage, the couple shifted to Sweden and later moved to Australia. During this period, the husband contended that both parties had abandoned their Indian domicile and acquired Swedish citizenship and domicile, thereby excluding the applicability of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties, and the wife returned to Mumbai, India. She filed proceedings before the Family Court seeking judicial separation and custody of the children under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The husband challenged the maintainability of the proceedings, arguing that Indian courts lacked jurisdiction under Section 1(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as the parties were no longer domiciled in India.
The Family Court, Mumbai accepted the husband’s contention and dismissed the wife’s petition on the ground that the parties had acquired Swedish domicile.
Aggrieved by this decision, the wife approached the Bombay High Court, which reversed the Family Court’s ruling and held that the Indian domicile of the parties had revived after leaving Sweden.
The husband thereafter appealed before the Supreme Court of India.
The primary legal issue before the Court was:
i. Whether the parties had abandoned their Indian domicile and acquired a foreign domicile so as to oust the jurisdiction of Indian courts under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
ii. Whether the wife continued to retain her Indian domicile despite residing abroad with her husband.
iii. Whether the Family Court at Mumbai had jurisdiction to entertain the matrimonial proceedings instituted by the wife.
Reasoning by Court:
Domicile of Origin and Domicile of Choice: The Supreme Court explained the distinction between “domicile of origin” and “domicile of choice.” The Court observed that every person acquires a domicile of origin at birth, and such domicile continues unless a new domicile of choice is validly acquired. The Court emphasized that acquisition of a domicile of choice requires: Actual residence in another country; and A clear and permanent intention to reside there indefinitely. Mere residence abroad or acquisition of foreign citizenship is not sufficient to establish abandonment of the domicile of origin.
Burden to Prove Change of Domicile: The Court held that the burden of proving abandonment of the Indian domicile lay upon the husband, who asserted acquisition of foreign domicile. The husband failed to establish: Permanent intention to reside in Sweden indefinitely; or Permanent settlement in Australia after leaving Sweden. The Court found that the evidence only demonstrated temporary residence for professional and personal reasons, and not a permanent intention to sever ties with India.
Revival of Indian Domicile: The Court further observed that even assuming the parties had temporarily acquired Swedish domicile, such domicile stood abandoned once they shifted to Australia without any intention of permanently residing in Sweden. In such circumstances, the domicile of origin, namely Indian domicile, automatically revived.
Wife’s Independent Domicile: The Court rejected the husband’s argument that the wife’s domicile must necessarily follow that of the husband. It recognized that the wife had retained her Indian domicile and that her return to India reinforced her intention to continue her legal connection with India. The Court thus affirmed that the wife was entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of Indian courts under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the husband and affirmed the judgment of the Bombay High Court. The Court held that: The parties had not permanently abandoned their Indian domicile; The wife retained her Indian domicile; and The Family Court at Mumbai had jurisdiction to entertain the matrimonial proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.