Divorce Court Had Jurisdiction Over Wife in India

Tennessee case summary on jurisdiction in divorce.

Hem Raj Singh v. Neeta Singh

The husband and wife in this Madison County, Tennessee, case were married in India in 2016 and had no children.  Prior to the marriage, the husband had resided in Tennessee.  Just a couple of months after the marriage, the parties separated, and the husband returned to Tennessee, while the wife remained in India.

In 2017, the husband filed for divorce in Tennessee.  The affidavit of service indicated that the wife was personally served with a copy of the complaint in India.  The wife filed an answer and counter-complaint for divorce.  A trial was held, and the wife did not appear.  The husband was granted a divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct.  The wife then filed a pro se appeal with the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  She argued that the lower court lacked subject matter jurisdiction as well as personal jurisdiction.  She further alleged that she was never served with the complaint.

The court first noted that there were a number of deficiencies with the wife’s appellate brief, and that she had not produced a transcript of the lower court’s proceedings.  However, since the issues were merely questions of law, the appeals court decided to proceed with the merits of the appeal, and it turned first to the question of subject matter jurisdiction.

The court pointed out that subject matter jurisdiction is a question of statute, and the relevant statute gave the court jurisdiction as long as the plaintiff resided in Tennessee for six months.  The husband made that allegation, and it was undisputed.  Therefore, the Court of Appeals held that there was subject matter jurisdiction.

The court next turned to the issue of personal jurisdiction. , which it found was governed by the Tennessee Long Arm Statute.  In this case, the lower court had found that the wife had been served, and that she made no objection to personal jurisdiction in her answer.  In fact, she affirmatively stated that she wanted to appear in court to present evidence.  The appeals court held that this was inconsistent with her later claim that there was no personal jurisdiction.

Finally, the wife made a general argument that she had not been properly served.  However, she stated no facts to support this argument.  Therefore, the appeals court held that this issue had been waived.

For this reason, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

No. W2017-02091-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jul. 3,  2019).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.