IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
JAYANT BANERJI, UMESH M.ADIGA, JJ.
Jagdeep L. Reddy S/o G.R. Lakshmipathi Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Neelimakallur W/o Jagdeep L. Reddy – Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos. 4440, 4663 of 2023
Decided On : 06-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal filed by husband regarding divorce. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. application for dissolution based on foreign decree. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. details of the agreed final decree of divorce. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court’s recognition of mutual consent divorce. (Para 9 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. jurisdiction and validity of foreign judgment. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. dissolution of marriage ordered. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 7. wife’s appeal dismissed as infructuous. (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
JAYANT BANERJI, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the husband under Section19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, Act, 1984 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2023, by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru in M.C.No.4402/2017, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13(1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Act, 1955 for divorce.
2. The appellant and respondent are husband and wife, who got married on 23.05.2013 and thereafter they started living together at their matrimonial home in Bengaluru along with the parents of the petitioner. The appellant is a qualified Engineer with Masters’ degree and is the only son of his parents. He had informed the respondent that he had joined employment in United States of America, USA only to gain some experience and his firm intention was to live with his parents and that he would return to India and stay with his parents. On the respondent agreeing to these terms, they got married. The parties left for USA in June 2013. They have a son born on 25.03.2015, who is stated to be under the custody of respondent at present. Several allegations have been made by the appellant against the respondent.
3. The facts of the case pleaded by the respondent in her statement of objections before the Family court have also been narrated. However, the Family Court granted a different prayer than what was sought, that is to say, the petition under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act, 1955 was dismissed, but, under Section 13A of the Act, 1955 the Family Court ordered judicial separation for a period of one year. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 13.03.2023, the instant appeal has been filed. Various grounds have been raised in the instant appeal.
4. However by means of an application bearing I.A.No.1/2025 dated 27.02.2025 filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, CPC read with Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 appellant states that since a final decree of divorce has been passed by the District Court, 247th Judicial District Harris County, State of Texas, USA, in case No.2024-25984, therefore, the present appeal be disposed of by granting a decree of dissolution of marriage by dissolving their marriage dated 23.05.2013, which was registered on the same day before the Registrar of Marriage. The aforesaid I.A. is supported by an affidavit of the GPA holder of the appellant enclosing therewith a copy of the "Agreed Final Decree of Divorce, AFDD" dated 24.01.2025.
5. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted a copy of the aforesaid AFDD passed by the District Court, 247th Judicial District Harris County, Texas, USA in case No.2024 - 25984 and signed by the Presiding Judge on 24.01.2025, which is supported by certificate issued by the District Clerk of Harris County, Texas, certifying the accompanying decree to be a true and correct copy of the original record, filed and recorded in her office dated 08.04.2025. This certified copy is made part of the record.
6. An extract of the aforesaid AFDD reads as follows:-
"AGREED FINAL DECREE OF DIVORCE
On this date, the Court considered the agreement of the parties in this case.
Appearances
Petitioner, JAGADEEP LAKSHMIPATHI REDDY, did not appear in person but has agreed to the terms of this order as evidenced by Petitioner's signature below and the signature of Chikkersha Puvvada, Petitioner's attorney of record, and further through the Declaration filed with the Court on January 3, 20205
Y. Narasimha Rao Vs. Y. Venkata Lakshmi
Jai Prakash Khadria and another Vs. Shyam Sunder Agarwalla and another
Foreign divorce decrees may be recognized in India under local law if they adhere to legal standards; custody matters involving children must be independently evaluated by Indian courts.
The jurisdiction over matrimonial disputes involving Hindus married in India remains under Indian law, regardless of their foreign citizenship, thus invalidating foreign divorce decrees not adhering ....
A marriage established under the Hindu Marriage Act remains valid and binding regardless of subsequent foreign citizenship, thus Indian courts have jurisdiction over related matrimonial disputes.
Wedding reception cannot be called as a part of marriage ritual.
Point of Law : Orders relating to custody of wards even when based on consent are liable to be varied by Court, if welfare of wards demands variation."
Legal representation in Family Court is not an entitlement; it requires compliance with court orders, particularly regarding child custody matters.
Point of law: Requirement under Section 13B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act is the “motion of both parties”.
The Family Court's discretion to allow legal representation is conditional upon compliance with prior court orders regarding child custody.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.