IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. OKA, ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
Shilpa Sachdev - Appellant
Versus
Anand Sachdev - Respondent
Family Court Appeal No. 56 of 2016 with Civil Application No. 154 of 2016
Decided On : 11-08-2017
Family Court Act - Jurisdiction of Foreign Court - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 - Dubai Court judgment not conclusive and binding in India - Dubai Court judgment not on merits of the case - Dubai Court not a Court of competent jurisdiction - Judgment unenforceable in India - Family Court Bandra has jurisdiction to try the divorce petition
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-wife filed a petition for divorce, maintenance, and accommodation for herself and the children. The respondent-husband claimed that the Dubai Court had jurisdiction to decide the matter and that its judgment was conclusive, barring the petition before the Family Court at Bandra.
Finding of the Court:
The Dubai Court judgment was not conclusive and binding in India as it was not on the merits of the case and the Dubai Court was not a Court of competent jurisdiction. The Family Court at Bandra had jurisdiction to try the divorce petition.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Dubai Court, Conclusiveness of the Dubai Court judgment, Jurisdiction of the Family Court at Bandra
Ratio Decidendi: A foreign judgment is conclusive in India only when it is passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction and in accordance with the law governing the matrimonial matters between the parties. The Dubai Court judgment was not on merits and was unenforceable in India. The Family Court at Bandra had jurisdiction to try the divorce petition.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the petition was restored to file. The Family Court at Bandra had jurisdiction to try the divorce petition.
Anuja Prabhudessai, J.
1. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 22nd February, 2016 in Petition No. A-3072 of 2016, passed by the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, the appellant (wife) has filed the present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984.
2. For the sake of convenience, the appellant-wife shall be referred to as “petitioner” and the respondent-husband shall be referred to as “respondent” as per their status in the petition before the Family Court.
3. A few relevant facts necessary to decide the appeal are as under:-
The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 9th March, 2000 at Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, according to the Hindu Vedic Rights. The marriage was subsequently registered at Mumbai, on 13th March, 2000. Subsequent to the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent moved to Dubai. While in Dubai, the couple was blessed with two children, a son and a daughter. The son was born on 16th December, 2001 and the daughter was born on 15th January, 2008.
4. On 21st June, 2008, the petitioner returned to Mumbai along with the children, and since then the petitioner along with her children is residing in Mumbai, whereas the respondent continues to reside in Dubai. On 12th November, 2014 the petitioner filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The petitioner also claimed maintenance and accommodation for herself and the children.
5. The respondent, by application dated 16th January, 2015 questioned the maintainability of the divorce petition filed by the petitioner. The respondent claimed that the petitioner had come to Mumbai on 21st June, 2008 with return tickets for Dubai on 31st August, 2008. The petitioner, however, did not return to Dubai and his efforts to convince her to return to Dubai rendered futile. The ensuing matrimonial discord led the respondent to file a petition for divorce being Petition No.8 of 2012 in Dubai Court. The respondent claimed that the petitioner was duly served with summons issued by Dubai Court, despite which the petitioner failed to appear in the Court, either personally or through her representative. Hence the matter proceeded in the absence of the petitioner in Dubai (UAE Court). The Dubai (UAE) Court by judgment dated 1st November, 2012 granted the petition for divorce. A copy of the said judgment was sent to the petitioner by DHL Express Courier. However, the petitioner refused to accept the same.
6. The respondent contends that the issue of dissolution of marriage has already been adjudicated on merits in Case No. 8 of 2012 by the Dubai (UAE) Court. Since the petitioner as well as the respondent last cohabited in Dubai, within the territorial jurisdiction of Dubai Court, the said Court had jurisdiction to decide the matter. The judgment passed by Dubai Court in Case No. 8 of 2012 being a foreign judgment is conclusive and the issue of dissolution of marriage having already been adjudicated on merits, the same cannot be read-judicated by filing petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner before the Family Court at Bandra is barred by the principles of res-judicata.
7. The petitioner claimed that she had not received any summons from the Court at Dubai and that the issue raised in the said matrimonial proceedings was not adjudicated by the Dubai Court on merits. The petitioner further claimed that the Court at Dubai was not competent Court to adjudicate the issue. It is contended that the forum as well as the grounds on which the relief is granted are not in accordance with the matrimonial law that govern the parties. The petitioner therefore claims that the decree is without jurisdiction and is not conclusive.
8. The learned trial Judge held that Dubai Court had proceeded exparte after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to appear before the Court. The learned Judge further held that Dubai Court has granted divorce on the ground of desertion, which ground is available under
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.