9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the foreign court. 2. Grounds for dissolution of marriage. 3. Recognition of foreign judgments in India. 4. Admissibility of photostat copies as evidence. Summary: Jurisdiction of the Foreign Court: The Supreme Court examined whether the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, USA, had jurisdiction to entertain the petition for dissolution of marriage. It was determined that the foreign court lacked jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as neither the marriage was celebrated nor the parties last resided together within its jurisdiction. The court emphasized that only a court recognized by the Act or the law under which the parties are married can be considered a court of competent jurisdiction unless both parties voluntarily and unconditionally submit to its jurisdiction. Grounds for Dissolution of Marriage: The decree for dissolution of marriage was based on the ground that "there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage between the parties can be preserved, and that the marriage is, therefore, irretrievably broken." The Supreme Court noted that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground recognized by the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage. Therefore, the decree was passed on a ground unavailable under the Act. Recognition of Foreign Judgments in India: The Supreme Court discussed the conditions under which foreign judgments can be recognized in India as per Section 13 of the CPC 1908. It was held that a foreign judgment is not conclusive if it is not pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction, not given on the merits of the case, founded on an incorrect view of international law, opposed to natural justice, obtained by fraud, or sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India. The court concluded that the foreign decree in this case did not meet these criteria and was thus unenforceable in India. Admissibility of Photostat Copies as Evidence: The High Court had set aside the Magistrate's order on the ground that the photostat copy of the decree was not admissible in evidence. The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 74(1)(iii) of the Indian Evidence Act, documents forming the acts or records of public judicial officers of a foreign country are public documents. Certified copies of such documents may be produced in proof of their contents. However, under Section 86 of the Act, there is a presumption of genuineness and accuracy only if the certified copy is also certified by the representative of the Central Government in or for that country. The photostat copy in question was inadmissible because it lacked this certification. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision on the inadmissibility of the photostat copy for lack of certification under Section 86 of the Indian Evidence Act. Additionally, the court dismissed the appeal on the more substantial ground that the foreign decree was not in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Act and the respondent had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign court. The matter was directed to proceed expeditiously in accordance with the law.
|
