A foreign divorce decree obtained by fraud and suppression of material facts, where the respondent did not submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court, is not conclusive and does not bar the maintainability of a suit for divorce in India.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of india is directed against the Order No. 28 dated 7. 8. 2004 passed by Shri K. K. Dey, the learned Additional District, 13th Court at Alipore in Matrimonial suit No. 49 of 2003.

( 2 ) ACTUALLY a Matrimonial Suit was filed by the o. p. /wife for divorce and in that suit an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act was filed for the alimony pendente lite. The petitioner/husband appeared before the trial Court and filed an application for dismissal of the suit on the grounds stated therein particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner had already obtained a decree for divorce against the o. p. from the Court of United kingdom and as such the marriage has already been dissolved.

( 3 ) AFTER hearing both the parties the learned Trial Judge was pleased to reject the application holding that the ex parte decree passed by the learned District Judge, Illford County Court is not binding upon the o. p. /wife. Against that order the present revisional application has been filed.

( 4 ) THE revisional application is contested by the wife by filing affidavit-in-opposition in which all the material allegations are denied. It is stated that the o. p. /wife was married with the petitioner according to Hindu rites on 17th January, 2000 at her matrimonial home at 158, Prince Golam hossain Shah Road, Calcutta-32. The said marriage was subsequently registered under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. After marriage the o. p. was taken to the ancestral house of the petitioner at Naihati, North 24-Parganas and thereafter to their flat at Regent Parm, Calcutta where they lived together as husband and wife. Subsequently the petitioner had left for California, usa to join his job at the University of Berkeley, California USA. After having obtained a visa from USA Embassy, Kolkata the O. P. had left for USA to join her husband. There she lived on temporary basis. It is claimed by the o. p. that though she stayed in USA and UK she was never domiciled there having retained her Indian citizenship. It is claimed by her that the trouble started when the parents of her husband went to California and stayed with the petitioner. It is also stated that on 13th January, 2003 the o. p. was compelled to leave her job in USA and to go to U. K. to reside there with the parents of the petitioner. On 18th February, 2003 the o. p. /wife was forcefully driven out from the residence of the petitioner at Essex by the petitioner and his parents and compelled to live in her elder brother's residence. In such circumstances she was compelled to come back to India to her parents' house on 16th march, 2003. On 30th April, 2003 she filed a Matrimonial Suit being MAT no. 781 of 2003 which was subsequently renumbered as MAT Suit No. 49 of 2003 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage by [passing a decree for divorce. In that suit the o. p. had also filed one application under Section 24 for alimony and maintenance pendente lite. Simultaneously, a criminal case under Sections 498a/34 and 406 of the indian Penal Code was also filed by the father of the o. p. /wife. In the same matrimonial Suit the petitioner entered appearance through his Advocate on 17. 7. 2003 and thereafter from time to time prayed for adjournments for filing written statement. Thus, the petitioner had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Indian Court but surprisingly on 15th December, 2003 i. e. on the date of filing written statement, the petitioner appeared with an application praying for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the marriage between the parties had been annulled by a purported decree of divorce passed by the Court of illford County Court, U. K. suppressing deliberately the facts of the pendency of matrimonial suit before the learned District Judge, South 24-Parganas filed by the o. p. /wife. It is claimed by the o. p. /wife that no summons in respect of the