1974 (10) TMI 83 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a Hindu marriage solemnised within this country can be validly annulled by a decree of divorce granted by a foreign court? Whether a divorce decree will be recognised in another jurisdiction? Held that - Appeal allowed. The International Hague Convention of 1970 which contains a comprehensive scheme for relieving the confusion caused by differing. systems of conflict of laws may serve as a model. But any such law, shall have to provide for the non-recognition of foreign decrees procured by fraud bearing on jurisdictional facts as also for the nonrecognition of decrees, the recognition of which would be contrary to our public policy. Until then the courts shall have to exercise a residual discretion to avoid flagrant injustice for, no rule of private inter- national law could compel a wife to submit to a decree procured by the husband by trickery. Such decrees offend against our notions of. substantial justice. In the result allow the appeal with costs set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the trial court.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Recognition of foreign divorce decrees by Indian courts.
2. Jurisdiction of the Nevada court in granting the divorce.
3. Fraud in obtaining the divorce decree.
4. Applicability of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
5. Public policy and substantial justice in recognizing foreign decrees.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Recognition of Foreign Divorce Decrees by Indian Courts:
The primary issue for decision was whether Indian courts are bound to give recognition to divorce decrees granted by foreign courts. The Supreme Court framed the question as: "Is the decree of divorce passed by the Nevada Court in U.S.A., entitled to recognition in India?" The court emphasized that the recognition of foreign decrees must depend on the rules of Private International Law applicable in India, which are not necessarily the same as those in other countries.

2. Jurisdiction of the Nevada Court in Granting the Divorce:
The Nevada court assumed jurisdiction based on the respondent's claim of being a bona fide resident and domiciled in Nevada. The Supreme Court noted that domicil is a jurisdictional fact and that the decree is open to collateral attack on the grounds that the respondent was not genuinely domiciled in Nevada. The court found that the respondent's stay in Nevada was brief and solely for the purpose of obtaining a divorce, thus failing the qualitative and quantitative tests for establishing domicile.

3. Fraud in Obtaining the Divorce Decree:
The court examined whether the divorce decree was procured by fraud, particularly fraud as to jurisdictional facts. It was established that the respondent made false representations to the Nevada court about his residency and intent to remain in Nevada. The court held that fraud vitiates all judicial acts, whether in rem or in personam, and thus the Nevada decree could not be recognized in India.

4. Applicability of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Section 13(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, makes a foreign judgment conclusive except where it has not been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the validity of the Nevada judgment must be determined under Section 13, even though the challenge was raised in a criminal proceeding for maintenance under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court concluded that the Nevada court was not competent to grant the divorce as the respondent was not genuinely domiciled there.

5. Public Policy and Substantial Justice in Recognizing Foreign Decrees:
The court emphasized that the recognition of foreign decrees must not offend against Indian public policy. The court noted that the respondent's actions in obtaining the divorce decree by fraud were contrary to the principles of substantial justice. The court held that no rule of private international law could compel a wife to submit to a decree procured by the husband through trickery.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the trial court's order directing the respondent to pay maintenance. The court underscored the need for legislative intervention to address such conflicts and suggested that the International Hague Convention of 1970 could serve as a model for future legislation.