Within the judgment delivered on August 19, the Court docket thought-about whether or not the second limb which refers back to the court docket inside whose jurisdiction, “the husband and spouse reside“, might additionally cowl a scenario the place the husband and spouse are residing individually.
The Court docket answered the query within the affirmative.
It noticed that the second limb of the supply must be interpreted to permit a spouse to strategy the household court docket having jurisdiction over the place the place she resides on the date of her submitting the divorce petition.
It defined that if the second limb is interpreted as referring solely to the place the place each husband and spouse final resided collectively, it will make that provision successfully redundant as a result of the third limb already particularly offers with the place the place they’d final resided collectively.
“Thus, the second limb have to be seen as conferring a jurisdiction on different District Courts, totally different from that inside whose jurisdiction the husband and spouse final resided collectively, if as a matter of truth, they’re residing individually in locations throughout the jurisdiction of these courts. To deal with the identical District Court docket because the one referred to in each – the second and third limbs of Part 3(3) – would tantamount to treating the phrases “inside whose jurisdiction the husband and spouse reside” and “inside whose jurisdiction the husband and spouse final resided collectively” as that means the identical factor, which might be impermissible,” the Court docket stated.
