The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a foreign judgment to be enforceable in India, the respondent must voluntarily and effectively submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court and contest the claim based on the grounds available under the matrimonial law under which the parties are married.

1. The respondent in O.P.No.1417 of 2008 on the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai, is the revision petitioner.

2. The respondent herein filed O.P.No.1417 of 2008 before the Principal Family Court against the revision petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights and in that application, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.2030 of 2009 to decide the maintainability of the O.P.No.1417 of 2008 as a preliminary issue, in view of the divorce decree granted earlier in favour of the revision petitioner herein and that application was dismissed by the Principal Family Court Judge and aggrieved by the same this revision is filed.

3. The case of the revision petitioner is that the respondent was his wife and he filed application for dissolution of marriage in Case No.1-05-FL-125461 before the Superior Court of California to dissolve the marriage between him and the respondent herein and as there was no appearance for the respondent before the Superior Court of California despite service of summons that Court passed an order of dissolution of marriage on the ground of irreconcilable differences and therefore, the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was already dissolved by a Competent Court and hence the application filed by the respondent herein for restitution of conjugal rights is not maintainable and therefore that question must be taken as a preliminary issue.

4. The respondent herein, who was also the respondent in I.A.No.2030 of 2009 filed counter stating that the order passed by the Superior Court of California was an ex parte order and United States of America is not a reciprocating country to India and therefore, any Judgment passed by a foreign court cannot be construed as a valid Judgment as per Section 13 of the C.P.C. It is further stated that summons in that proceedings was not served on her. The learned Family Court Judge relying upon the Judgment in Honble Supreme Court rendered in (1991) 3 SCC 451 (Y.Narasimha Rao and others Vs. Y.Venkata Lakshmi and another) held that the order passed by the Superior Court of California dissolving the marriage between the parties is without jurisdiction and unenforceable in India and is also not binding upon the respondent and dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, this Revision is filed by the petitioner husband.

5. Mr.R.Thiyagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that as per Section 13 of C.P.C. and as per the Judgment rendered in (1991) 3 SCC 451 (Y.Narasimha Rao and others Vs. Y.Venkata Lakshmi and another) a Foreign Judgment cannot be relied upon. Nevertheless, the learned senior counsel submitted that when the parties submitted to the jurisdiction of the Foreign Court then they are bound by the Judgment and in this case, the respondent herein went to America and participated in the proceedings and submitted to the jurisdiction of the Foreign Court by filing application to set aside the ex parte order of divorce, filed various applications for spousal support and for other reliefs and the petitioners counsel at America also agreed for setting aside the ex parte decree of divorce but refused to grant spousal support and other reliefs prayed for the respondents and thereafter the respondent did not prosecute the case and those applications were dismissed and therefore, having regard to the fact that the respondent submitted to the jurisdiction of the Foreign Court, she is bound by the Judgment rendered by the Superior Court of California and hence the present petition filed by the respondent before the usual Family Court for restitution of conjugal right in O.P.No.1417 of 2008 is not maintainable.

6. On the other hand, Mr.V.Balu, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Foreign Court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the application as admittedly, the marriage took place at Chennai according to Hindu rites and the respondent was severely assaulted and she was forced to return to India