Skip to main content

Foreign divorce decree not conclusive for cases in India: HC

Deciding a divorce case of an NRI couple, the Punjab and Haryana high court has ruled that any judgment passed by a court of another country in a matrimonial dispute would not be considered "conclusive" in relation to the same matrimonial dispute pending before an Indian court.

The court has held that couples who have tied the knot in India and migrated to foreign lands would be governed by Indian laws only and the matrimonial decree passed by a foreign court would be binding only if the orders are passed as per the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA).

A single bench headed by Justice Rajiv Narain Raina had passed these orders while dismissing a petition filed by one Rupak Rathi, who had challenged the divorce petition filed by his wife Anita Chaudhary as the couple had already got divorce in a UK court on the grounds of "irretrievable breakdown" of marriage.

Dismissing Rathi's petition, Justice Raina held, "Since irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not available in HMA, the foreign court decree would neither be binding in India nor recognized."

The complexity of the matter had come to the fore during divorce proceedings initiated by Rathi in Brantford County Court (BCC) in the UK on March 17, 2011.

While those proceedings were pending, Chaudhary filed a divorce petition in a Panchkula court under Section 13 of the HMA on grounds of cruelty by Rathi.

Both the proceedings carried on simultaneously for sometime before the English court passed a decree of divorce on January 31, 2012, on the ground that the marriage had "broken down irretrievably".

Following the divorce in UK, Rathi moved the Panchkula court seeking rejection of Chaudhary's divorce petition on the ground that the UK's divorce decree was binding. He also argued that the Panchkula court has no jurisdiction to entertain the divorce petition.

Chaudhary, however, contested that the UK had no jurisdiction to pass the decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which is not available in HMA.

HC has now dismissed Rathi's objection petition and the divorce would be decided by the Panchkula court.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Foreign-divorce-decree-not-conclusive-for-cases-in-India-HC/articleshow/33761821.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more