Objection to Territorial Jurisdiction Must Be Raised at the Earliest: Orissa High Court Dismisses Wife's Plea Against Jurisdiction

In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court has dismissed a wife's plea challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, Cuttack, in a divorce case initiated by her husband. The bench of Justice G. Satapathy, in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 28856 of 2024, ruled that the petitioner-wife's challenge was "inconsequential" as she had raised the jurisdictional objection belatedly, nearly five years after the proceedings commenced.

The case arose from a divorce petition filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the Family Court, Cuttack. The wife objected, contending that the couple had last resided together in June 2017, whereas the husband filed the divorce petition in February 2019, by which time he was no longer living in Cuttack. She argued that under Section 19(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, a divorce petition should be filed where the couple last resided together, making the Family Court, Cuttack, an improper venue.

The High Court, however, ruled against the wife, emphasizing that objections to territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. Referring to Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which governs objections to jurisdiction, the Court stated: "An objection to territorial jurisdiction can be waived, expressly or impliedly, by conduct. In this case, the petitioner-wife participated in the proceedings for five years without raising the issue. Such a belated challenge amounts to an implied waiver."

The Court also noted that the wife's objection was first raised on September 15, 2024, long after the husband had filed his affidavit evidence in April 2024. By that time, substantial proceedings had already taken place. Citing Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v. Jagannath Traders (2013) and G. Ayyappan Pillai v. State of Kerala (2010), the Court reiterated that jurisdictional objections must be raised before the trial begins, and failure to do so results in waiver.

Rejecting the wife's plea, the Court observed: "In the event of holding the petition for dissolution of marriage to be not maintainable before the Family Court, Cuttack, the OP-husband would not be precluded from presenting such application at the appropriate jurisdiction. Hence, such an objection at this stage is inconsequential."

Dismissing the writ petition, the Court ruled that the wife's plea lacked merit and was merely a delaying tactic. It, however, clarified that if necessary, the petitioner-wife was not precluded from filing a fresh petition in the appropriate jurisdiction.

This ruling reinforces the principle that objections to jurisdiction must be raised promptly and that delaying such objections can result in forfeiting the right to challenge.

Date of Decision : March 10, 2025