US Divorce Decree On 'Irretrievable Breakdown' Not Valid Under Hindu Marriage Act: Supreme Court
The Court also held that since the husband only filed a Written Statement in the US Court on jurisdiction, it can't be said that he submitted to the jurisdiction.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India has set aside a Bombay High Court judgment, declaring that a foreign divorce decree granted on grounds not recognized by the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) is not conclusive or binding.
While the Court found that the decree passed by the US Court failed to meet the standards of natural justice, it utilized its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant the couple a formal divorce due to the "irretrievable breakdown" of their marriage following nearly 18 years of separation.
The Court noted that the appellant-husband had only contested the US court's jurisdiction via post and did not "voluntarily or effectively" participate in those proceedings.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while relying on Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi (1991 SC), observed, “In the present case, the US Court granted a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. This ground is not recognised under the HMA, which is the matrimonial law applicable to the parties. Further, while the appellant-husband was duly served, he only filed a written statement by post expressly contesting the jurisdiction of the US Court, and did not participate in those proceedings any further. It cannot therefore be said that he voluntarily or effectively submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign forum, or that he was afforded a meaningful opportunity to contest the matter. The foreign decree accordingly does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Y. Narasimha Rao (supra), and the principles of natural justice cannot be said to have been complied with.”
Advocate on Record Lawyer S Knit & Co appeared for the Appellants, while Advocate on Record P. N. Puri appeared for the Respondents.
The Appeal was filed against the judgment and order passed by the Bombay High Court whereby the order of the Family Court, Pune, holding that the Pune Court has jurisdiction to try the divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband, was set aside.
Factual Background
The husband and wife married on December 25, 2005, in Mumbai, India, following Hindu rituals. Although they married in India, both lived in the United States at the time. The husband held an Indian citizenship and a US Green Card. Shortly after the wedding, both moved back to the US to live together.
In December 2007, the couple returned to India for a brief visit. They stayed together for one night at their home in Pune before the wife moved to her parents' house in Mumbai. They eventually returned to the US in early 2008 and lived together until September 2008, when their relationship broke down.
The wife filed for divorce in a Michigan Circuit Court on September 25, 2008. The husband responded to the petition in October 2008, arguing that the US court lacked jurisdiction because the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) governed their marriage. However, after submitting his written objections by mail, the husband did not appear in person for any further hearings in the US.
While the US case proceeded, the husband returned to India and filed his own divorce petition in the Pune Family Court on October 24, 2008. He claimed the Pune court had jurisdiction because the couple stayed at their Pune residence during their visits, which he defined as their matrimonial home.
On February 13, 2009, the US court granted the divorce. It ruled that the marriage ended due to an irretrievable breakdown. The court divided their property, ordered the husband to pay the wife $42,119.76 for funds he previously transferred to India, and required him to pay $2,000 toward her legal fees.
The wife challenged the husband’s Indian petition, but the Pune Family Court initially ruled in the husband's favor. It decided that the US decree was invalid under Indian law because "breakdown of marriage" is not a recognized ground for divorce under the HMA.
However, the High Court later overturned this decision. It ruled that since both parties lived in the US, they were domiciled there, making the HMA inapplicable. The High Court concluded that the US court held proper jurisdiction and set aside the Pune court's order. The husband then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Contention of the Parties
The appellant-husband submitted that the Indian Courts have jurisdiction to grant a decree of divorce as the marriage was solemnised in India and both parties are Indian citizens, and therefore, the HMA would apply. It was further submitted that the decree of divorce granted by the US Court was an ex-parte order, inasmuch as the appellant-husband only sent his written statement by post, raising specific objections to the jurisdiction of the US Court, and did not participate further in those proceedings. It was accordingly submitted that the foreign decree granting divorce is not binding on the parties.
On the other hand, the respondent-wife submitted that both parties were domiciled in the US after the solemnization of their marriage and co-habited there until September 2008, which was their last joint place of residence. It was further submitted that the decree of divorce granted by the US Courts is conclusive as per Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Observations of the Court
Two questions fell for consideration of the Court, i.e., first, whether the foreign decree of divorce is conclusive and binding on the parties; and second, whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is appropriate for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
The Court said, “The parties were married as per Hindu rites and rituals at Chembur, Mumbai, India. As such, the law applicable to their marriage, and consequently to any proceedings for divorce, would be the HMA. It is evident that both parties spent the greater part of their time, post-marriage, in the US. However, the appellant-husband had a family residence at Aungh, Pune, and when the parties returned to India to visit, they would reside there, however briefly.”
The Court ordered that the foreign decree is not conclusive and cannot be sustained as a valid decree of divorce between the parties.
“Consequently, the question of which Court, whether the Family Court, Pune or the Circuit Court for the County of Oakland, had jurisdiction to entertain the divorce proceedings, need not be conclusively decided in the present proceedings. We do, however, find it necessary to bring a quietus to this matter. The parties have been separated since 2008, nearly eighteen years now, and it is manifest that no matrimonial bond subsists between them. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and to grant the parties a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage”, it said.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and the impugned order was set aside.
Cause Title: Kishorekumar Mohan Kale v. Kashmira Kale [Civil Appeal No. 1342 of 2013]
Appearances:
Appellant: Advocate on Record Lawyer S Knit & Co, Advocate Bina Madhavan, Advocate S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Advocate S. Tridev Sagar, Advocate Shruti Sharma, Advocate Usha Bhaskar.
Respondent: Advocate on Record P. N. Puri, Advocate Ashutosh Dubey, Advocate Abhijit Sarwate, Advocate Abhishek Chauhan, Advocate Amit Shahi, Advocate Amit Kumar, Advocate Rishabh Bhardwaj, Advocate Sudershan Goel.