A foreign judgment is not binding on a person who did not submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court and who was not given an opportunity to contest the case on the merits.

This revisional application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was directed against the order impugned No. 24 dated 22.6.2001 passed by Sri B.N. Das, learned Additional District Judge, 10th Court, Alipore in connection with Misc. Case No. 8 of 2000 arising out of Matrimonial Suit No. 16 of 2000.

2. It appears from the impugned order that O.P./respondent/wife filed a Matrimonial Suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and also for injunction against the present petitioner husband. The petitioner husband appeared there and challenged the maintainability of the proceeding on the ground that he had already obtained decree of divorce from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen Country, USA in Docket No. FM 02-2298-99 (Civil Action) hereinafter referred to as "foreign decree" to which jurisdiction the wife submitted by giving answers to the summons and accordingly the marriage tie between the parties had since been dissolved by order dated 22.5.2000. The learned trial Judge after hearing both the parties dismissed the plea of the husband and found the suit maintainable. Against that order the present revisional application arose.

3. The case of the respondent wife in the suit being Mat. Suit No. 16 of 2000 filed by her, as it is gathered from the impugned order itself is very simple and nothing exceptional to many other such cases instituted in different Courts of our country. Thus, one Mr. Atri Guha came from U.S.A. to India and married the O.P./respondent Srimati Mahua Guha on 9.8.96 according to Hindu rites and customs. They lived together as husband and wife till 21.8.96 and thereafter Atri left for New York USA where he was employed. At the time of departure he gave out that he would take back Mahua. Thereafter Atri did not show any interest to take her to USA despite all efforts taken by Mahua for the purpose, nor did Atri provide any financial assistance to Mahua. Since then although Mahua lived in her matrimonial house and till today she has been living there. Thereafter to her utter dismay Mahua received a summons from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen Country (Civil Action). In that case Atri prayed for a decree of divorce against Mahua. Mahua replied to that summons to the effect that the said foreign Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the case as the marriage was solemnised in India and Mahua never lived in the USA. It was also contended by Mahua in response to the summons that her husband practised fraud upon her as he had no intention to take her to the USA. The husband filed an application before the trial Court in India stating, inter alia, that the suit was not maintainable on the ground that the husband already obtained a decree of divorce dated 22.6.2000 from the Superior Court of New Jersey, USA.

4. The contention of the wife against that petition of the husband before the trial Court was that the decree passed by the foreign Court was not binding upon her on the grounds that her case falls within the exceptional Clauses (a) & (b) of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure inasmuch as the purported foreign decree was not pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction and secondly it was not on merits of the case.

5. Mr. S.C. Bagchi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner husband stated that the O. P.I wife submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign Court inasmuch as she had replied to some queries of the said Court, but at the same time Mr. Bagchi admits that the decree of the foreign Court was an ex parte one and no written statement was filed by the O.P./wife. Mr. Bagchi has drawn my attention to the Cause Title of the plaint in connection with Matrimonial Suit filed by Shrimati Mahua Guha wherefrom it appears that the address of her husband was shown within the territorial jurisdiction of New Jersey Court. Mr. Bagchi has also drawn my attention to the information f