PROVIDENCE — Less than a week after the Rhode Island Supreme Court said a same-sex couple could not get divorced in Family Court, one of the Providence women involved in the groundbreaking case filed for divorce yesterday in Superior Court, the main state trial court.

Margaret R. Chambers and Cassandra B. Ormiston married in Fall River in May 2004 shortly after Massachusetts became the first state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. And last year, the couple filed for divorce in Rhode Island Family Court.

But in a 3-to-2 decision issued last Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that Family Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the divorce because under the 1961 law that created Family Court, the word “marriage” means the union of a man and a woman.

Chambers’ lawyer, Louis M. Pulner, filed a complaint for divorce in Superior Court shortly after noon yesterday.

“The Supreme Court is telling us Family Court lacks jurisdiction, but they did not say Superior Court lacks jurisdiction,” Pulner said in an interview. “They did not say this couple could not get divorced in Rhode Island. They just said they could not get divorced in Family Court because of their interpretation of statutory language from 1961.”

Superior Court has “extraordinary equitable jurisdiction” that is broader than Family Court’s jurisdiction, and Superior Court handled divorces before Family Court was created in 1961, Pulner said.

Although Family Court was given the power to grant divorces from “all bonds of marriage,” Pulner said, “We had a bond of marriage, and they didn’t grant a divorce.” So, he said, “I’m reverting to the court of original jurisdiction to handle this divorce proceeding.”

Pulner said he doesn’t know of any divorces that have been granted in Superior Court since 1961, but he said, “There is always a first time.”

“I cannot fathom that there is not a forum in the state of Rhode Island for a legally married couple to dissolve their marriage,” Pulner said.

In last week’s ruling, the Supreme Court majority cited definitions of marriage found in 1961 dictionaries, saying, “There is absolutely no reason to believe that, when the act creating the Family Court became law in 1961, the legislators understood the word marriage to refer to any state other than ‘the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex.’ ”

But Pulner said the 1961 statute would not be at issue in Superior Court, so last week’s ruling would not pose an obstacle to the divorce complaint filed yesterday.

When the couple filed for divorce in Family Court, the high court was asked to address this certified question: “May the Family Court properly recognize, for the purpose of entertaining a divorce petition, the marriage of two persons of the same sex who were purportedly married in another state?”

Pulner said it’s too soon to say whether the Supreme Court would be asked to answer another certified question based on yesterday’s filing.

Lawyers have said Chambers and Ormiston could get divorced if one of them moves to Massachusetts and lives there for a year. Last week, Ormiston has said she has no intention of moving. And yesterday, Pulner said, “My client is loath to pack up and leave her home, which is the state of Rhode Island. I think she is entitled to a divorce in the state of Rhode Island, and I will pursue all possible avenues to ensure she gets that result.”

Ormiston’s lawyer, Nancy A. Palmisciano, said she, too, had considered filing for divorce in Superior Court, and she has no objection to Pulner’s filing. “The point of this whole thing is to get these ladies divorced,” she said.

Superior Court does not have the jurisdictional issues that the couple faced in Family Court, Palmisciano said. “My complaint would have been brought under the equity jurisdiction of Superior Court,” she said. “It’s a court of general jurisdiction involving both equity as well as statutes.”

Palmisciano said other same-sex couples have gone to Superior Court to resolve property disputes, but she doesn’t know of any that have tried to get divorced in Superior Court.

Yesterday’s complaint says the grounds for divorce are “irreconcilable differences which have caused the irremediable breakdown of the marriage.” The complaint asks that Chambers be awarded “the marital domicile” on Prospect Street and real estate in Durango, Colo. Also, it asks that Ormiston be denied alimony and that Chambers be allowed to “waive alimony permanently.”

efitzpat@projo.com