High Court Of Orissa
P. C. MISRA
PADMINI MISHRA - Appellant
Versus
RAMESH CHANDRA MISHRA - Respondent
Second Appeal 174 Of 1989
Decided On : 03/05/1990
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - SECTION 13 - FOREIGN JUDGMENT - VALIDITY AND BINDING EFFECT - JURISDICTION OF FOREIGN COURT - CONCLUSIVENESS OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT - GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGING FOREIGN JUDGMENT - AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS - DELAY AND PREJUDICE - DOMICILE - RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT IN UNITED KINGDOM - DIVORCE BY MUTUAL CONSENT - SECTION 13-B OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Wife filed a suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging ill-treatment and cruelty by her husband. The trial court granted the divorce, but the appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that the marriage was dissolved by a decree passed by the Supreme Court of County of Albany (U.S.A.) in 1980. The wife appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the foreign judgment was valid and binding on the parties, and that it dissolved the marriage between them with effect from 18-1-1980. The court found that the wife had failed to establish any of the grounds under Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code on which a foreign judgment can be challenged. The court also rejected the wife's application to amend her pleadings to introduce new facts, finding that the amendment was belated and intended to prolong the litigation.
Issues: 1. Whether the foreign judgment passed by the Supreme Court of County of Albany in the United States of America was valid and binding on the parties. 2. Whether the said judgment dissolved the relationship of marriage between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A foreign judgment is conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties, unless it is shown that the judgment was obtained by fraud, or that the court which pronounced the judgment was not a court of competent jurisdiction, or that the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained were opposed to natural justice, or that the judgment was 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. 2. The wife failed to establish any of the grounds under Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code on which a foreign judgment can be challenged. 3. The amendment of the pleadings sought by the wife was belated and intended to prolong the litigation, and would cause serious prejudice and injustice to the husband. 4. The foreign judgment was, therefore, valid and binding on the parties, and it dissolved the marriage between them with effect from 18-1-1980.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, subject to the observation that if the foreign judgment was not recognized in the United Kingdom, the marriage between the parties would stand dissolved by virtue of the decree passed by the High Court.
P. C. MISRA, J.
( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a suit filed by the wife for obtaining a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The present appellant as plaintiff instituted the suit (O. S. No. 48/ 83-I) in the court of Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar praying for dissolution of the marriage on the ground, of ill-treatment and cruelty by her husband (respondent in this appeal ). The suit was decreed by the trial Court. But the appellate court reversed the judgment on a finding that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant stands dissolved with effect from 18-1-1980 by the decree passed by the Supreme Court of County of Albany (U. S. A.) When this appeal was placed for admission, the respondent entered appearance through Advocates and both parties prayed for final disposal of the appeal at the stage of admission saying that a complaint case has been filed by the mother of the present appellant against the respondent and his old father alleging that the respondent is guilty of bigamy and a Criminal Revision (Criminal Revision No. 98 / 86) is pending in this Court to quash the proceeding. It was stated by the counsel for both parties that apart from the other questions of fact which may be required to be proved to bring home the charge of bigamy, the question as to whether the marriage was dissolved with effect from 18-1-1980 by the judgment of the foreign Court would be one of the most relevant points for consideration and the said point is the only question for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly the L. C. R. was called for and this appeal was heard at length for final disposal of the appeal.
( 2 ) AS already stated the plaintiff filed the suit praying for dissolution of the marriage mainly on the ground of ill-treatment and cruelty. Admittedly the marriage was performed at Bhubaneswar on 18-5-1974 whereafter plaintiff and the defendant lived as husband and wife for some time at Bhubaneswar, and thereafter went to Delhi. The defendant-husband left for U. S. A. shortly thereafter and the plaintiff joined her husband some time in April, 1975. According to the plaintiff, she lived with her husband in U. S. A. till August, 1975. , during which time she found that the relationship is getting strained and there was temperamentally incompatibility. During her stay in U. S. A. she found that the behaviour of her husband was intolerable and under the circumstances she left her husband and returned to India to be with her parents. It has also been alleged in the plaint that her husband has obtained a void decree of divorce from the Supreme Court of County of Albany in the State of New York in U. S. A. which, according to her, is incompetent to dissolve a Hindu marriage, as it is not a forum created under the Hindu Marriage Act. Since the said decree of divorce is neither operative nor enforceable in law, she has filed the suit almost for the same relief from a court of competent jurisdiction. In the written statement of the defendant the allegations of illtreatment, misbehaviour and cruelty were stoutly denied. It was further alleged that the plaintiff voluntarily deserted the defendant and went away for Delhi for her own purposes and was, therefore, guilty of desertion. According to the defendant, all his attempts for reconciliation having failed, he filed a case for divorce in the Supreme Court of County of Albany in the State of New York in U. S. A. on the ground of desertion for a continuous period of about 4 years. The defendant asserts that the Supreme Court of the State of New York is a competent court having jurisdiction in relation to a dispute involving matrimonial relationship between the parties, since the plaintiff and defendant last lived together and cohabitated in the State of New York. The decree for divorce granted by the Supreme Court on 18-1-1980 was after due notice to the plaintiff, which as stated by the defendant is binding on the parties and has already severed the marital
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.