HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.924 of 2024

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the order dated 30.01.2024 in IA No. 462 of 2021 in OS No.267 of 2020, passed by the VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.

Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Court’).

2. The revision petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife.

3. The brief facts of the case, as averred in the Revision Petition, are that the revision petitioner and the respondent got married as per the Hindu rites and traditions in Hyderabad on 07.04.1996; that they were blessed with three children; and that during the subsistence of their marriage, certain properties were purchased in India and also in USA.

3.2. The claim of the respondent is that a few properties were transferred from her father and brothers to the name of the petitioner as a gift, upon insistence of the petitioner, and a few were purchased in the name of the petitioner, but were financed by her father and brothers. That as certain disputes arose between the parties, they were living separately since 01.05.2018; and that as the parties were residing in USA, the respondent has filed Divorce Petition before the Common Wealth of Massachusetts, the Trial Court Probate, and the Family Court Department (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Foreign Court’)’ and that the parties also entered into a Parties Joint Stipulation deed, dated 18.04.2019, for division of the properties, financial issues, education of children, etc; that the Foreign Court by order dated 22.06.2020, vide Docket No.NO190424DR, granted divorce to the parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage under the Massachusetts General Law (MGL) and ruled upon other aspects in contention as well; one among them being the dispute with regard to division of the properties, wherein it was held that both the parties shall have 50-50 ownership over all the scheduled properties.

3.4 Accordingly, the respondent filed OS.No.267 of 2020 on the file of the District Court seeking partition of the schedule properties in terms of the Foreign Court Judgment dated 22.06.2020, since the said Court is in non-reciprocating country and the judgment of the said Court can be executed only if the Court having competent jurisdiction allows it.

3.5 During the pendency of the said OS.No.267 of 2020, the revision petitioner filed an IA.No.462 of 2021 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that there is no genuine cause of action, that the suit is barred by law and further, the suit is also undervalued and thereby, praying to reject the plaint filed by the respondent. The District Court, after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 30.01.2024 dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri Avinash Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri A.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel on record for the petitioner and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel appearing for Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel on record for the respondent.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is contrary to law, facts of the case, and the probabilities of the matter. He further submitted that reliance is placed by the District Court on the judgment of a Foreign Court dated 22.06.2020, which is not binding or conclusive and, therefore, it cannot form basis for granting the relief of partition, as sought for by the respondent. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the District Court erred in construing that the Foreign Court judgment is reflecting a mutual agreement between the parties concerning the division of the properties situated in India, while simultaneously holding that the ground on which divorce was granted in the foreign jurisdiction, viz., namely irretrievable breakdown of