IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. M-247 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.1.2011 Sham Singh Aujla .. Appellant v. Marie Claire Solange Hogue ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. KDS Sodhi, Advocate for the appellant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and decree of the court below, whereby divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband was dismissed. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute the fact that marriage of the appellant was solemnised with the respondent at Brampton (Canada) on 24.8.2003. After the marriage, the parties lived together in Canada. The divorce petition was filed at Kapurthala. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the appellant was deported from Canada, the respondent had also come along with him and stayed in India for some time before she went back. However, he does not have any proof regarding that. As no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the courts in India, the petition for divorce as such cannot be entertained. Though the same was dismissed by the court below on different grounds, however, the question of jurisdiction can be considered even by this court when, on admitted facts, the courts in India do not have the jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) 31.1.2011 Judge mk