The territorial character of the law, which prevents the “long arm” of justice from reaching outside a state’s borders, is one of its most notable characteristics. Humans cannot be tied to a specific place, unlike laws. This frequently results in conflicts between the law and society. People cross boundaries and interact in various ways, which results in conflicting jurisdictions, ambiguity in the application of the law, and a multiplicity of proceedings. Private laws are perhaps the clearest illustration of this.
sondur gopal v sondur rajini Case Facts
- Following their marriage in 1989, the Respondent and Appellant spouses departed for Sweden. In 1997, they were awarded citizenship in Sweden. They relocated to Mumbai that same year, and they spent almost three years there until moving to Sydney in 1999.
- In January 2002, the Husband and his family returned to Sweden after he lost his job. The couple and their kids stayed in Australia from January to December 2003 after he took a new job in Sydney.
- After that, the Wife and the kids returned to India and declined to go back to Sydney.
- The Wife requested judicial separation and child custody in a petition she filed with the Family Court of Bandra. The husband contested the petition’s maintainability and argued that since the couple was a Swedish citizen living in Australia, their preferred domicile, no Indian court could have jurisdiction over them due to Section 1(2) of the hindu marriage act of 1955.
- Based on similar reasoning, the Family Court determined that the Wife’s Petition could not be maintained. The Wife further filed an appeal in the High Court after becoming enraged with the Family Court’s ruling.
sondur gopal v sondur rajini Issues
- Whether Hindus worldwide, regardless of where they live, are covered by the Act or not?
- Taking into account the evidence that the husband presented to the court, is it possible to say that the husband resides in India?
- When the Act’s provisions are applicable and when they expire?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- After receiving notice of judicial separation, he filed a counterpetition in the Bandra family court, arguing that the notice was null and void on its own because it could not be maintained.
- He argued that although they were originally Indian nationals, they later moved to Sweden, and even though he was living in Australia at the time, his family still retained Swedish citizenship and the same rights.
- He was happy that there was no Indian domicile because he did not have a valid address in India and held many citizenships. This unusual viewpoint was presented in court, arguing that the wife would live where her husband did and that the Hindu Marriage Act’s stipulations would no longer apply if the wife chose to leave India after marriage.
- He declared that he had no intention of relocating to India and that the judicial separation granted under Section 10, along with child custody, was null and void.
Respondent:
- She said that even if the family relocated to Sweden and subsequently Australia, their place of residence remained Indian.
- She continued by saying that, despite her husband’s move to Sweden, she would always consider herself to be Indian.
- She also argued that even though her place of residence had also shifted to Sweden, their migration to Australia and continued residency there nullifies her change of domicile and reinstates her original place of birth as “domicile.”
- She added that all Hindus, regardless of where they live, will be covered by the Hindu Marriage Act.
sondur gopal v sondur rajini Judgment
- The Hindu Marriage Act exclusively applies to Hindus who are residents of India, the Honorable Court ruled in its initial ruling. The Act operates extraterritorial under Section 1(2).
- On the other hand, it would be absurd if the Act’s scope allowed it to be passed even in cases where the subject matter had nothing to do with India. Therefore, it was decided that the Act would only apply outside of Indian territory if the required party or parties had an Indian domicile.
- This is known as the “doctrine of territorial nexus,” which states that an adequate territorial link between the parties and the Act is required even if the parties are not physically located inside the territories.
- Additionally, the following passage from the Prem Singh v. Sm. Dulari Bai and Anr. case is pertinent to note: A fair interpretation of the aforementioned clauses would indicate that, with the exception of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Act applies to all of India, including to Hindus who reside in the territories it covers but are not in those territories. This is especially evident from the first section of the Act.
- This section, when combined with Section 2(1)(a)(b), makes it abundantly evident that, in terms of the Act’s interterritorial operation, all Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs are covered, regardless of whether or not they have their place of residence in India.
- Additionally, the case Nitaben v. Dhirendra Chandrakant Shukla & Anr. was used as a reference. It was stated here that section 1 of the Act refers to the Act’s extension to all of India, with the exception of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, as well as to the territories to which it is applicable and, additionally, to all individuals who are residents of those territories but are not present in those territories.
- The Rajasthan High Court’s ruling in Varindra Singh & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan is another decision to which reference has been made. In this case, the court held that Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of section 2 of the hindu marriage act of 1955 applies to all individuals who practice Hinduism, regardless of where they live.
- Because of this, section 2 of the hindu marriage act of 1955 is sufficiently broad to include everyone who practices Hinduism, regardless of where they live or whether they have their permanent home in Indian territory. In conclusion, the knowledgeable Senior Attorney has depended on a ruling from the Kerala High Court about Vinaya Nair & Anr. v. Corporation of Kochi.
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
