C.R.P.(MD).No.2594 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON: 01.03.2023

DELIVERED ON: 08.03.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

C.R.P.(MD).No.2594 of 2022

and

C.M.P(MD).No12712 of 2022

Vimal Jayachandran

...Petitioner

Vs

Diana Jerine Johnson

Represented through her power agent

K.Thavaselvi Jeyanthi Koilraj

...Respondent

PRAYER: Civil Revision Case is filed under Article 227 of Constitution

of India, to strike off the petition in I.D.O.P.No.170 of 2017 on the file of

the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli by allowing this civil revision

petition.

For Petitioner

: Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu

For Respondent

: Mr.M.Vallinayagam

Senior Counsel

For Mr.M.Muthumalairaja

1/22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD).No.2594 of 2022

O R D E R

The revision petition has been filed by the respondent/husband

in IDOP.No.170 of 2017 on the file of the I Additional District Court,

Tirunelveli to strike off IDOP.No.170 of 2017.

Factual Matrix:

2.The revision petitioner and the respondent got married as per

Christian Ceremony on 06.02.2012 and the same was also registered with

Marriage Registrar of Tisayanvilai on 13.02.2012. After marriage, the wife

went to U.S.A where the husband was working. While the couple was in

U.S.A, the wife delivered a girl child on 30.07.2013. On 05.02.2014, the

wife visited India and returned back to U.S.A on 26.05.2015. On

10.11.2015, the husband had filed a petition before the 1^st Judicial District

in Family Court, State of Minnesota for divorce. The wife had filed an

answer petition and a counter contending that the said Court has no

jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain such a divorce petition.

3.Despite the petition filed by the wife pointing out the issue of

jurisdiction, the Court proceeded with the divorce petition.

2/22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD).No.2594 of 2022

4.The wife had filed IDOP.No.170 of 2017 before the District

Court, Tirunelveli on 01.08.2017 through her mother as power agent for

the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. In the said petition, the wife had

filed I.A.No.114 of 2017 seeking interim injunction restraining the

husband from proceeding with the divorce proceedings in U.S.A till the

disposal of the main I.D.O.P. An interim order was granted as prayed for

on 30.10.2017 granting interim injunction restraining the husband from

continuing the divorce proceedings in USA or filing any other case as

against wife in any Court of USA till 03.01.2018. The said interim order

was passed in the presence of the counsel appearing for the husband. The

interim order was extended on 03.01.2018 till 10.01.2018 and it was

extended on various dates of hearing and the injunction order is still in

force.

5.The 1^st Judicial District in Family Court, State of Minnesota,

County of Dakota passed an order on 27.02.2018 dissolving the marriage

between the parties. Based upon the said divorce order granted by the

County Court in U.S.A, the present civil revision petition has been filed by

the husband to strike off I.D.O.P.No.170 of 2017 mainly on the ground that

3/22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD).No.2594 of 2022

once a divorce decree has been granted by a competent Foreign Court,

thereafter, restitution of conjugal rights proceedings cannot be permitted to

be proceeded with and the same would only amount to abuse of process of

the Court.

The contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the revision

petitioner are as follows:

6.As per the law applicable to the State of Minnesota, it is

enough that any one of the parties have being a resident of the said State

for more than 180 days immediately preceding the commencement of the

proceedings is entitled to file a Divorce Petition.

7.The husband being a resident of the said State for more than

180 days prior to the filing of the divorce proceedings, the said