SONDUR GOPAL versus SONDUR RAJINI

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 706 · Decided: 15-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. PRASAD, V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
(2013] 10 S.C.R. 706 
SONDUR GOPAL 
v. 
SONDUR RAJINI 
(Civil Appeal No. 4629 of 2005) 
JULY 15, 2013 
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND 
V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - ss.1(2), 2(1) and 10 - Extent 
C 
and applicability of the Act - Extra-territorial operation - Wife's 
petition for judicial separation and custody of children -
Maintainability of - Challenged by husband on ground that the 
parties had no domicile in India and, hence, were not 
governed by the Act - Held: The Act has extra-territorial 
D operation and applies to Hindus domiciled in India even if they 
reside outside India - If the requirement of domicile in India 
is omitted a/together, the Act shall have no nexus with India 
which shall render the Act vulnerable on the ground that 
extra-territorial operation has no nexus with India - Domicile 
E 
of origin prevails until not only another domicile is acquired 
but it must manifest intention of abandoning the domicile of 
origin - Unless proved, there is presumption against the 
change of domicile - Therefore, the person who alleges it has · 
to prove that - Intention is always lodged in the mind, which 
F 
can be inferred from any act, event or circumstance in the life 
of such person - On facts, no material to endorse the 
husband's claim of being domicile of Australia - The husband 
or for that matter, the wife and the children did not acquire 
Australian citizenship - The claim that the husband desired 
G 
to permanently reside in Australia, in the face of the material 
available, can only be termed as a dream - It does not 
establish his intention to reside there permanently - Further, 
there is no whisper at all as to how and in what manner the 
husband had abandoned the domicile of origin - The 
H 
706 
SONDUR GOPAL v. SONDUR RAJINI 
707 
husband continued to have the domicile of origin i.e. India -
A 
Both the husband and wife being domicile of India, were 
covered by the provisions of the Act - Petition filed by wife, 
therefore, was maintainable - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 
245(2). 
Private International Law - Domicile - Kinds of - Domicile 
of origin and domicile of choice - Discussed. 
B 
The respondent-wife filed petition before the Family 
Court inter alia praying for decree of judicial separation 
from appellant-husband under Section 10 of the Hindu C 
Marriage Act, 1955 and custody of their two minor' 
children. 
The appellant-husband filed interim application 
questioning the maintainability of the petition on ground o 
that the parties had no domicile in India and, hence, were 
not governed by the Hindu Marriage Act. The husband 
pleaded that the parties were citizens of Sweden 
presently domiciled in Australia which was their domicile 
of choice and having abandoned the domicile of origin 
E 
i.e. India, the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Mumbai was 
barred by the: pr1>visions of Section 1 (2) of the Hindu 
Marriage Act. 
The Family Court allowed the application ofappellant-
husband and held the petition of respondent-wife not 
maintainable. In appeal, the High Court set aside the 
order of the Family Court and held the petition filed by 
F 
the respondent-wife to be maintainable. The High Court 
held that the husband had miserably failed to establish 
G 
that he ever abandoned Indian domicile and/or intended 
to acquire domicile of his choice and even assuming that 
the '1usba~~'~ad ,~baodoned his domicile of origin and . 
ac~ired d~~~cile o~ ~~eden along with citizens.hip, he 
abandoned ·the domicile of Sweden when he shifted to 
H 
• 
I . 
. j 
. 
708 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 10 S.C.R. 
A Australia and in this way the domicile of India got revived. 
B 
The order passed by the High Court was challenged 
before this Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. From a plain reading of Section 1 (2) of the 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it is evident that it has extra-
territorial operation. A law which has extra territorial . 
operation cannot directly be enforced in another State but 
such a law is not invalid and saved by Article 245 (2) of 
C the CQnstitution of India. Article 245(2) provides that no 
law made by Parliament shall be deemed to be invalid on 
the ground that it would have extra-territorial operation. 
But this does not mean that law having extra-territorial 
operation can be enacted which has '110 nexus at all with 
D India. Unless such contingency exists, the Parliament 
shall be incompetent to make a law having extra-terri
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.