SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
  1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Private International Law

NEERJA SARAPH VS JAYANT V. SARAPH 1994 SCC (6) 461

NEERJA SARAPH VS JAYANT V. SARAPH 1994 SCC (6) 461

 

FACTS

  • The appellant, Neeraja Saraph, an educated woman with a job as a teacher, married Jayant V. Saraph, a computer hardware doctor employed in the USA. They married in August 1989, and Jayant returned to the USA shortly after. Despite initial correspondence encouraging her to join him in the USA, Jayant's interest waned, and by June 1990, he sought an annulment of the marriage in a USA court.
  • The appellant's father-in-law, expressing regret but no offer of compensation, acknowledged his son's decision.
  • The appellant filed a suit for damages against her husband and father-in-law, claiming ruination of her life. The suit was decreed ex-parte in her favor for Rs. 22 lakhs.
  • The respondents appealed, and the High Court stayed the decree, requiring a deposit of Rs. 1,00,000, of which the appellant could withdraw 50%.
  • Present appeal is against the HC orders.

 

 

ISSUE

  • How can the rights and interests of women deserted by non-resident Indians (NRIs) with annulment decrees obtained from foreign courts be protected?

 

RULE

  • The court suggested that the Union of India consider legislation to safeguard women's interests in marriages with NRIs, including:
    • Annulment of marriages between NRIs and Indian women in India by foreign courts should be prohibited.
    • Provisions for adequate alimony from the husband's property in India and abroad.
    • Making Indian court decrees executable in foreign courts through reciprocal agreements.

 

 HELD

  • The court noted the exploitation of women, particularly middle-class women who marry NRIs expecting a better future, only to be deserted.
  • Interim Relief: The High Court's order was modified, directing the deposit of Rs. 3,00,000 (including the Rs. 1,00,000 previously ordered) with provisions for the appellant to withdraw Rs. 1,00,000 and receive monthly interest from the remaining Rs. 2,00,000.
  • The Court proposed legislation similar to the UK's Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 to facilitate the enforcement of judgments and resolutions in cross-border matrimonial disputes.
  • The appeals were disposed of with the modification of the High Court's order regarding the deposit and withdrawal of funds. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case but highlighted the need for legislative measures to protect women in similar situations.

 

 

COMMENTARY

  • In Veena Kalia v Jatinder Nath Kalia,the issue was whether non-contest by the wife of a divorce petition filed by the husband in a foreign court, would imply that she had conceded to the jurisdiction of the foreign court. The husband obtained an ex parte divorce decree under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from a court in Nova Scotia (Canada) on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
  • Subsequently, the wife filed for divorce in India, on the ground of adultery, cruelty and desertion; she also claimed maintenance under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, for herself and her daughters, as also for their marriage expenses.
  • The trial court dismissed her petition on the ground that since she had accepted the judgment of the foreign court dissolving her marriage, the bar of res judicata under section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would apply, and further, that her petition was mala fide attempt to harass the husband, and was nothing but misuse of the court process.
  • Hence, the wife’s appeal. It was argued that simply because she did not contest the husband’s divorce application in Canada does not imply that she had conceded to that court’s jurisdiction; she further contended that divorce was obtained by him on a ground which is not even available under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, viz, irretrievable breakdown of marriage; besides, he was neither domiciled, nor habitually or permanently resided within the jurisdiction of that foreign court, and hence, the decree granted by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia was a nullity.
  • The court referred to some cases decided by the Supreme Court on the point, and held that rules of natural justice were violated, as the foreign court did not care to check-up whether the wife had enough means and necessary documents to travel, and defend her case in Canada. Consequently, a decree in her favour and maintenance and marriage expenses for the daughters, were allowed.