A foreign judgment of matrimonial dispute is not binding and conclusive in Indian Courts in civil and matrimonial proceedings, especially if the party never submitted voluntarily to the jurisdiction of the foreign Court.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Petitioner has assailed the order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the District Judge-cum-Family Court, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, whereby the suit under Section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') for grant of maintenance to the plaintiff and for declaring the charge on the land/residential house was dismissed.

2. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the same was passed on the premise that under Section 18 of the Act, a Hindu wife can claim maintenance from her husband during subsistence of marriage. The basic spirit of the Section is sustaining and preserving the matrimonial status. If marriage is subsisting, then wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 18 of the Act. In case of divorce, the relief can only be claimed under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as permanent alimony. The factum of divorce by the foreign Court was noticed and it was held that in the event of status of the petitioner being a divorcee, her remedy to seek maintenance under Section 18 of the Act is not maintainable and she can have recourse to the provision under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3. In the present case, marriage was solemnized between the parties on 10.03.2012 according to Anand Karaj at Gurdwara Shaheedan Village Dansiwal, Tehsil Garshankar District Hoshiarpur. The marriage was registered with the Registrar of Marriages at Nawanshahr on 19.03.2012. Thereafter marriage was consummated and both husband and wife lived together and performed marital obligations towards each other in village Majara-Nau-Abad, Tehsil Banga, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. No issue was born to the couple out of this marriage.

4. Thereafter, respondent returned to America on 25.03.2012 and the petitioner started living at her in-law's house with her mother-in-law. On being harassed, she left the matrimonial house. There are allegations of harassment at the instance of parents-in-law of the petitioner. After some time, parents-in-law also returned to USA and came back in August 2012 and the petitioner again started residing with them. Petitioner was again given ill-treatment

5. Thereafter respondent filed divorce petition in Superior Court at California. Petitioner had to appoint her relative Baljit Kaur as her Attorney to pursue the matter in the foreign Court. Ultimately divorce was granted in favour of the respondent according to the US Laws.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. The sole point involved in the present case is whether decree granted by the US Court will nullify the effect of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act for the purposes of grant of relief under Section 18 of the Act. In Y. Narasimha Rao and others vs. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and another, (1991) 3 Supreme Court Cases 451 , the effect of foreign judgment of matrimonial dispute was adjudged by the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein it was held that where a judgment of the foreign Court is founded on refusal to recognise the law of this country in cases in which such law is applicable, the judgment will not be recognized by the courts in this country. The marriages which took place in this country can only be under either the customary or the statutory law in force in this country. Hence, the only law that can be applicable to the matrimonial disputes is the one under which the parties are married, and no other law. When, a foreign judgment is founded on jurisdiction or on a ground not recognized by such law, it is a judgment which is in defiance of the law. Hence, it is not conclusive of the matters adjudicated therein and, therefore, unenforceable in this country. Such a judgment would be in breach of the matrimonial law in force in this country. It was also held that mere filing of reply to the claim under foreign law and without submitting to the jurisdiction of that Court, or an appearance in the court either in person or thro