Important Points:
" Regarding validity of marriage performed between parties in a foreign country, wherein it was held that the act covers four types of marriages, (1) a marriage solemnized before the Marriage Officer appointed by the Government of India in a foreign country as per Chapter II, (2) deemed solemnization as per S.17, (3) recognition of marriage of the country where the marriage is performed and a certificate thereof u/s 24 r/w S.3 of the Act and (4) the marriage is solemnized in a foreign country other than under the provisions of the Act.
" The District Court has the same meaning as in the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Therefore to confer jurisdiction on a District Court to entertain a petition for divorce, a foreign marriage is treated as a marriage under the Special Marriage Act. A bare reading of S.18(1) of SM Act would clearly indicate that Chapters IV, V, VI and VII of the SM Act apply in relation to marriages which are "solemnized under this Act" and "to any other marriage solemnized in a foreign country between parties of whom one at least is a citizen of India.

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

1. These two appeals arise out of matrimonial issues that had arisen between a couple who got married under the Special Marriage Act on 27.3.1985. Both the appeals are filed by the wife. Mat. Appeal No. 212/2012 has been filed against the order in OP (S.M.A.) No. 681/2007 of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram and Mat. Appeal No. 354/2016 has been filed by her against the judgment dated 30.11.2015 in OP No. 876/2012 of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Since both the appeals arise out of the issues relating to the same couple, those are heard and decided together.

2. OP (S.M.A.) No. 681/2007 was filed by the husband seeking divorce. According to him, he is a Belgium citizen and he married the appellant, who is an Indian citizen by birth on 27.3.1985 as per the law prevailing at Belgium and in terms with the Civil Code of the Municipality of Alken, Judicial District Tongeren Province of Limburg. Though the marriage was solemnized in 1985, they were living together since 1982 at Thiruvananthapuram District at Kumarapuram and PTP Nagar. They have two sons born out of the wedlock. They remained at Belgium till August, 1987. Both of them shifted their residence to appellant's native place and started residing at Thiruvananthapuram from 18.8.1987 onwards. He had also wound up all his business in Belgium and all his belongings were shifted to Thiruvananthapuram. Since it was not possible to acquire properties in his name, he being a foreign citizen, he purchased 1 acre of land in Pangappara Village in the name of the appellant, constructed a residential building with modern facilities like swimming pool, tennis court etc. and the entire money for purchase of land and construction of building was expended by him. He also received orders for artwork and he started an Art Studio in the year 1988, undertaking decorative drawing jobs and exporting the drawings to Belgium clients. Since there was legal issue relating to registration of a company in his name, the company was registered in the name of his wife and the entire activity was undertaken in her name. The business grew fast and it expanded with more than 50 employees. All the sale proceeds received were deposited in the bank account maintained in the name of the appellant. Several other properties were also purchased at Thiruvananthapuram, Kottayam and Kollam by utilizing the income so received. According to the husband, the unexpected wealth that had come in the name of the appellant made her arrogant, dictatorial and discourteous. She started taking advice from outsiders and relatives instead of consulting him and he was completely ignored. He felt isolated, discriminated and overruled and he was unable to lead a normal life. It reached a stage where even for his personal purpose, he had to ask money from the respondent as the entire money was held by her in her account. Later, the petitioner/husband had come to know that the appellant was having an illegitimate girl child and he was in contact with her and the father of the child was the direct uncle of the respondent. Respondent used to visit her daughter regularly and father of the child was given major portion of the income from the said business. The fact that she had an illegitimate girl child and she was given in marriage was suppressed from the petitioner. Alleging that this caused cruelty and mental tension, he sought for divorce. Subsequently, he acquired P.I.O. status and was capable of acquiring property and to start business in his own name. When he requested the appellant to make him a shareholder in the company, she refused. She sold the properties, purchased new properties and constructed new buildings without consulting the petitioner. Finally, petitioner started companies in his own name. He further alleged that she deserted him from November, 2009 onwards without reasonable cause. The disharmony of the family increased day by day and she was abusing him whenever she gets a chance