Bangalore: The person holding Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) card matrimonial relief against them Partners holding same OCI card before the appropriate courts in India, Karnataka High Court In a recent decision.
The judgment was delivered while dismissing a petition filed by a estranged husband, challenging the decision of a family court in Bengaluru to consider a matrimonial case instituted against him by his estranged wife.
“Under the Notifications dated 11th April, 2005, 5th November, 2007 and 5th January, 2009 issued by the Central Government under Section 7B of the Citizenship Act, OCI cardholders are treated at par with Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) in several aspects. These notifications were removed on March 4, 2021, it is beside the point as it is likely to be operational. Sub-section 2 of Section 7B does not cover certain rights granted to OCI cardholders. does not cover the right to obtain matrimonial relief in the hands of the native courts. Subject to the statutory notifications not contained in so many words, such a right of litigation may be true. But it does not deprive them of such right ,” Justice Krishna S Dikshit observed in his order.
Judge says provisions are ‘domicile centric’
The judge further observed that the respondent wife is presumed to be residing within the jurisdiction of the court.” Thus, these provisions are ‘citizenship neutral’ but ‘domicile centric’.
Needless to say that domicile includes the fact of residence and intention to reside indefinitely. In this case these ingredients are plentiful. It is profitable to advertise in the section ‘Halsbury’s Laws of England’ (3rd ed.).
VII in Article 26: ‘A person’s domicile is the country in which he either has law or is believed to have a permanent home’,” Justice Dixit said.
Challenging the order of the family court in Bengaluru on September 25, 2020, the estranged husband had moved the HC, after his interlocutory application seeking quashing of the divorce petition filed by his wife, was dismissed saying It was held that the original court had jurisdiction to try. Subject matrimonial reasons.
The estranged wife had filed the petition in 2018 under section 27(1)(a) and (d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 along with section 18 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969. He had sought a decree for divorce. and the retention of child custody.
The petitioner husband is a ‘Christian by faith’, and the respondent wife is a ‘Hindu by faith’. Both are British citizens.
They were married on February 20, 2000, according to Hindu Arya Samaj rites. A civil marriage ceremony was held in Britain on 18 March 2000. Equally dated certificate of registration was obtained.
In April 2006, the couple had a girl child. While the wife had an OCI card in 2006, the husband got it in 2017.
The judgment was delivered while dismissing a petition filed by a estranged husband, challenging the decision of a family court in Bengaluru to consider a matrimonial case instituted against him by his estranged wife.
“Under the Notifications dated 11th April, 2005, 5th November, 2007 and 5th January, 2009 issued by the Central Government under Section 7B of the Citizenship Act, OCI cardholders are treated at par with Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) in several aspects. These notifications were removed on March 4, 2021, it is beside the point as it is likely to be operational. Sub-section 2 of Section 7B does not cover certain rights granted to OCI cardholders. does not cover the right to obtain matrimonial relief in the hands of the native courts. Subject to the statutory notifications not contained in so many words, such a right of litigation may be true. But it does not deprive them of such right ,” Justice Krishna S Dikshit observed in his order.
Judge says provisions are ‘domicile centric’
The judge further observed that the respondent wife is presumed to be residing within the jurisdiction of the court.” Thus, these provisions are ‘citizenship neutral’ but ‘domicile centric’.
Needless to say that domicile includes the fact of residence and intention to reside indefinitely. In this case these ingredients are plentiful. It is profitable to advertise in the section ‘Halsbury’s Laws of England’ (3rd ed.).
VII in Article 26: ‘A person’s domicile is the country in which he either has law or is believed to have a permanent home’,” Justice Dixit said.
Challenging the order of the family court in Bengaluru on September 25, 2020, the estranged husband had moved the HC, after his interlocutory application seeking quashing of the divorce petition filed by his wife, was dismissed saying It was held that the original court had jurisdiction to try. Subject matrimonial reasons.
The estranged wife had filed the petition in 2018 under section 27(1)(a) and (d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 along with section 18 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969. He had sought a decree for divorce. and the retention of child custody.
The petitioner husband is a ‘Christian by faith’, and the respondent wife is a ‘Hindu by faith’. Both are British citizens.
They were married on February 20, 2000, according to Hindu Arya Samaj rites. A civil marriage ceremony was held in Britain on 18 March 2000. Equally dated certificate of registration was obtained.
In April 2006, the couple had a girl child. While the wife had an OCI card in 2006, the husband got it in 2017.