The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of jurisdiction, the validity of foreign judgments, and the need for compliance with principles of natural justice, especially in the context of matrimonial cases and domicile.

The petitioner is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent in O.S. No. 278 of 2002. Pending that suit, the petitioner herein has filed I.A. No. 546 of 2002 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the suit filed by the respondent. The said I.A. No. 546 of 2002 was dismissed by the court below, hence this revision.

2. The respondent herein has filed O.S. No. 278 of 2002 before the Subordinate Judge, Erode for a declaration to declare the decree of divorce passed by the Sheriffdom of South Stratheclyde Dumfries and Galloway at Dumfries Court, Scotland in F. 164/01 for divorce seeking to dissolve the marriage between the respondent and the petitioner as ultra vires, unsustainable, illegal, unenforceable and without jurisdiction; and for a consequential injunction restraining the petitioner herein from enforcing the said decree or claim any rights under the said decree either by seeking to take a second wife or otherwise.

3. The case of the respondent as contained in the plaint is as follows:-

The respondent and petitioner are Hindus by birth and are domiciled in India at the time when their marriage was solemnised according to Hindu rites and customs on 01-03-1996 at Erode, Tamil Nadu. After the marriage, they lived at Erode for about two weeks and thereafter the petitioner left to England to continue his studies. Subsequently, the respondent also joined the petitioner at England on 15-06-1996 and both of them lived at Scotland and also at various other places in England. According to the respondent, the petitioner used to pick up quarrel with her even on trivial matters and exhibited uneven temper. On several occasions, the respondent was beaten by the petitioner without there being any reason. The respondent waited with the hope that the petitioner would realise his mistake. It is stated that on one occasion, the petitioner beaten her with the result she sustained bleeding injuries and she was driven out of the matrimonial home and thereafter she had to take shelter in her friend's house. Subsequently, the respondent also returned to India and many attempts were made by her parents to convince the petitioner to take back the plaintiff, but all became vain. The respondent is always ready and willing to join the petitioner. While things are such, the respondent came to know that the petitioner had moved the Court in Sheriffdom of South Stratheclyde Dumfries and Gallowway at Dumfries suppressing the material facts and obtained a decree of Divorce on 27-02-2002 in F 164/01 dissolving the marriage. According to the respondent, both the respondent and petitioner being Hindus, the Decree of Divorce granted by Foreign Court is unenforceable as the Law of Hindu with reference to Hindu Marriage Act has not been followed; that the Decree was passed by the Foreign Court without hearing the respondent as she was in India; that taking advantage of the Decree of Divorce granted by the Foreign Court, the petitioner is planning to get re-married, hence she filed the above suit.

4. According to the petitioner, the respondent herein is a British national by birth and is certainly bound by the decree passed by the Court within the territorial jurisdiction of Britain; that he was domiciled in U.K. for the past eight years and was accorded the permanent resident status since 1998; that the respondent herein had abundant opportunity to raise the question of jurisdiction before the Court at Dumfries, since Form 15 and 26 were personally served on her to challenge the jurisdiction and she was explained about her entitlement to have legal aid and having ignored the same, the respondent has filed the vexatious suit, which suffers from lack of jurisdiction and prayed to reject the plaint filed by the respondent herein but erroneously dismissed the application, hence the present revision petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below erred in holding that the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 will not be attrac