A decree of divorce granted by a foreign court is valid and binding in India if the husband was domiciled in that country at the time of the divorce proceedings and the divorce was granted in accordance with the lex domicilii.

1. Whether a Hindu Marriage solemnised within this country can be validly annulled by a decree of divorce granted by a foreign Court is the question that falls for determination in this revision petition.

2. The proceedings arise out of a petition under Sec. 488, Criminal P.C., moved by the respondent-wife Satya on the 22nd of April, 1965, claiming maintenance on behalf of herself and her two minor children against her husband Teja Singh. It was averred therein that the marriage between the parties took place according to Sikh rites on the 1st of July, 1955, in Basti Guzan at Jullundur. Two children were born of the wedlock in the year 1956 and 1958. Towards the end of the year 1958, the petitioner-husband planned to go to U.S.A. to secure a Doctorate in Forestry and accordingly left for the United States on the 23rd of January, 1959. He is said to have joined the University in the State of New York and spent more than five years for obtaining higher education there and subsequently had secured employment in the States and was said to be receiving a salary of about Rs. 2,500.00 per mensem. During this long period it was alleged that he had wholly refused and neglected to maintain the respondent-wife and her two children.

3. The petitioner in his reply whilst controverting the allegations made in the petition primarily pleaded that prior to the institution of the petition, the respondent had moved and secured a decree of divorce on the 30th of December, 1964, against the petitioner in accordance with law from the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in the United States and thus the bond of marriage stood dissolved and the petitioner was not liable to pay any maintenance to the respondent-wife. Objections regarding the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court at Jullundur to take cognizance of the matter were also taken and agitated but as these have not been pressed in this Court, I deem it unnecessary to refer to them. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jullundur by her order dated the 17th of December, 1960, held that the Court had territorial jurisdiction; the annulment of marriage can only be done under the Hindu Marriage Act, that the decree granted by the Court of the State of Nevada contravened Sections 19 and 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and the respondent-wife not being a party to the divorce proceedings, the decree granted by the Court in the United States was not binding between the husband and the wife. Accordingly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300.00 for the respondent-wife and Rs. 100.00 for each of the minor children was directed. A revision petition against the said order was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur, who held that as the marriage between the parties had been performed in India, according to Hindu rites, the same could be annulled only according to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore the decree of divorce of the foreign Court was not of a binding nature between the parties.

4. Mr. Bhagirath Dass in support of this petition did not challenge the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the Magistrates Court at Jullundur had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the application under Section 488, Criminal P.C. The primary contention that has been pressed by him is that the decree of divorce granted by the 2nd Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in the United States of America to the petitioner husband was binding between the parties and not having been challenged by way of appeal was now of absolute validity. On this premises it was contended that the bond of husband and wife did not subsist between the parties and consequently the liability of the petitioner-husband to maintain his wife had ceased. In the course of the argument learned counsel for both the parties conceded their inability to cite binding precedent, or for that matter any Indian authority on the point. The issue has thus to be examined in the wake of the gener