P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

Ext.P5 communication issued by the respondent is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner was married to one Dayana Cheeran Chakunny. Both of them were working in United Arab Emirates (UAE). The case of the petitioner is that he obtained divorce from his wife by mutual consent from the UAE Personal Status Court. Ext.P2 is the Memorandum of Understanding entered into by the petitioner with his divorced wife in this connection and Ext.P3 is the agreement entered into by them to subject themselves to the UAE personal status law No.28/2005 for claiming divorce in terms of Ext.P2 Memorandum of Understanding. Ext.P4 is the divorce certification granted by the UAE Personal Status Court to the petitioner. On the strength of Ext.P4 divorce certification, the petitioner gave notice to the Marriage Officer in India under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 to marry another lady. In response to the said notice, the petitioner was informed by the Marriage Officer that Ext.P4 divorce certification can be acted upon for solemnizing the proposed marriage only if it is confirmed by an Indian Court. Ext.P5 is the communication issued by the Marriage Officer to the petitioner in this connection. According to the petitioner, the Marriage Officer under the said statute is bound by law to act upon Ext.P4 divorce certification issued by the UAE Personal Status Court. He, therefore, seeks orders to quash Ext.P5 communication and direct the Marriage Officer to solemnize the marriage for which notice was given by him.

3. A statement has been filed in this matter by the Marriage Officer. It is contended by the Marriage Officer in the said statement that the petitioner and his divorced wife are Christians; that UAE Personal Status Court from which the petitioner obtained divorce does not recognize the law of India applicable to the parties; that divorce obtained by the petitioner is in accordance with Muslim Personal Law and that therefore, an Indian court cannot accept the said divorce in the light of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Attorney for the respondent.

5. The petitioner and his divorced wife are citizens of India belonging to Christian religion. Since they were married in accordance with the Christian religious rites, it is beyond dispute that they could obtain divorce only in accordance with the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The fact that UAE Personal Status Court does not recognize the said law applicable to the parties is also not in dispute. Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a foreign judgment shall not be conclusive where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable. The question, therefore, is whether Ext.P4 divorce certification issued by the UAE Personal Status Court can be accepted as conclusive for the purpose of granting the relief sought by the petitioner in this writ petition.

6. Having regard to the need of the hour to have definite rules for recognition of foreign judgments in personal and family matters, particularly in matrimonial disputes, in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi, (1991) 3 SCC 451, the Apex Court has interpreted Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure as follows:

“20. From the aforesaid discussion the following rule can be deduced for recognising a foreign matrimonial judgment in this country. The jurisdiction assumed by the foreign court as well as the grounds on which the relief is granted must be in accordance with the matrimonial law under which the parties are married. The exceptions to this rule may be as follows: (i) where the matrimonial action is filed in the forum where the respondent is domiciled or habitually and permanently resides and the relief is granted on a ground available in the matrimonial law under which the parties are