The Supreme Court ruled that a divorce decree passed by a US court on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not enforceable in India when parties are governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, which does not recognise this ground.
THE Supreme Court has ruled that a divorce decree granted by a court in the United States on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage cannot be enforced in India, holding that this ground is not recognised under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside a Bombay High Court order and restored the Pune Family Court’s finding that it held jurisdiction over the matter. Despite declaring the foreign decree invalid, the Court dissolved the marriage by exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, noting that the couple had been living apart since 2008, nearly eighteen years.
The case arose out of a marriage solemnised in Mumbai in December 2005 according to Hindu rites. Both parties were residing in the United States at the time, the husband holding Indian citizenship along with a US Green Card.
After briefly staying together at their residence in Aungh, Pune during a visit to India in 2007, they continued living together in the US until September 2008, when the relationship broke down.
Also read: Excise policy case: Kejriwal moves Supreme Court after Delhi High Court rejects his transfer plea
The wife filed for divorce before a Michigan Circuit Court on September 25, 2008. The husband responded by filing a written statement through post, expressly contesting the jurisdiction of the US court, but did not participate any further in those proceedings.
In February 2009, the US court granted a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and passed consequential financial directions, including property division, an order directing the husband to pay $42,119.76 for funds he had previously transferred to India, and $2,000 towards the wife’s legal fees.
Meanwhile, the husband had approached the Family Court in Pune on October 24, 2008, seeking divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The Pune Family Court upheld its own jurisdiction, holding that the marriage was solemnised in India and that the foreign decree relied upon a ground not recognised under Indian law. The court found that the matrimonial home was at Aungh, Pune, where the parties had stayed during their visits to India.
The Bombay High Court, however, reversed this finding in its order dated March 7, 2010. It took the view that both parties were domiciled in the United States and that the American court had jurisdiction, thereby setting aside the Pune Family Court’s order. The husband then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The wife contended before the Supreme Court that since both parties had co-habited in the US until September 2008, which was their last joint place of residence, and were domiciled there, the US court’s decree was conclusive under section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The husband, on the other hand, argued that the Indian courts had jurisdiction because the marriage was solemnised in India and both parties remained Indian citizens, making the Hindu Marriage Act the applicable matrimonial law.
Setting aside the High Court’s decision, the Court restored the Family Court’s order. The Bench observed that, “Since the marriage was solemnised according to Hindu rites and rituals in India, the HMA would apply to the parties even if they had settled abroad thereafter.”
It found that the matrimonial home was at Aungh, Pune, as the parties had stayed there during their visits to India, even if briefly, and that it was the place where they last resided together in the country.
Relying on the landmark precedent in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi (1991), the Court held that the US court had granted divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, a ground that is not recognised under the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Bench further noted that the husband had only filed a written statement by post expressly contesting the US court’s jurisdiction and did not participate in those proceedings any further. It could not, therefore, be said that he had voluntarily or effectively submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign forum, or that he was afforded a meaningful opportunity to contest the matter.
The foreign decree, the Court concluded, did not satisfy the conditions laid down in Y. Narasimha Rao, and the principles of natural justice could not be said to have been complied with.
Having declared the foreign decree unenforceable, the Court turned to the question of whether it ought to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution.
Rather than leaving the parties to pursue fresh litigation before the Family Court, the Bench chose to bring a quietus to the matter. The Court observed that the parties had been separated since 2008, nearly eighteen years, and that it was manifest that no matrimonial bond subsisted between them.
In these circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to grant the couple a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
The appeal was accordingly allowed and the impugned order of the Bombay High Court was set aside.
Case title: Kishorekumar Mohan Kale v. Kashmira Kale [Civil Appeal No. 1342 of 2013]
Leave a Reply