SATYA VS TEJA SINGH AIR 1975 SC 105
FACT
- Satya (appellant) married Teja Singh (respondent) on July 1, 1955, according to Hindu rites in Jullundur, Punjab.
- Both were Indian citizens and domiciled in India at the time of marriage.
- They had two children: a boy in 1956 and a girl in 1958.
- Teja Singh left for the USA on January 23, 1959, for higher studies in Forestry.
- He studied at a New York University for one year and then at Utah State University for about four years, earning a Doctorate in Forestry. After completing his studies, he secured a job in Utah with a salary equivalent to about 2500 rupees per month.
- Satya continued to live in India with the children during Teja Singh's time in the USA.
- On January 21, 1965, she filed an application under Section 488, CrPC, alleging that Teja Singh had neglected to maintain her and the children.
- Teja Singh, through his counsel, claimed that their marriage was dissolved by a divorce decree granted by the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, USA, on December 30, 1964.
- The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jullundur, ruled on December 17, 1966, that the Nevada divorce decree was not binding on Satya.
- The decree was not recognized because Teja Singh had not "permanently settled" in Nevada. The Magistrate ordered Teja Singh to pay Rs. 300/- per month for Satya and Rs. 100/- per month for each child.
- The Additional Session Judge, Jullundur, confirmed the Magistrate’s order, asserting that the marriage could only be dissolved under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- In a revision application by Teja Singh, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana ruled in his favour. The single judge held that Teja Singh was domiciled in Nevada at the time of the divorce proceedings, making the decree valid.
- The court applied the English rule that the wife's domicile follows the husband's, giving the Nevada court jurisdiction.
- Present appeal is against the HC order.
ISSUE
- Whether a Hindu marriage solemnized in India can be annulled by a foreign court’s decree of divorce.
RULE
- Domicile requires both physical presence and intent, and that fraud nullifies legal acts and judgments. Indian law, through cases like Satya v. Teja Singh(present case) and Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi, aligns with these principles, ensuring that judgments obtained by fraud or violating public policy are not recognized.
HELD
- Recognition of foreign divorce decrees must align with Indian private international law and not offend Indian public policy.
- For jurisdiction in divorce cases, the domicile of the plaintiff is crucial.
- The Nevada court claimed jurisdiction based on Teja Singh's alleged domicile in Nevada.
- Nevada Court Judgment:
- The judgment included recitals, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the decree of divorce.
- Teja Singh was a bona fide resident of Nevada intending to make it his home indefinitely.
- The respondent obtained a divorce decree from Nevada while allegedly not being a bona fide resident or domiciled there.
- The respondent's actual residence was in Utah, and later in Canada, indicating he was not domiciled in Nevada when the divorce was granted.
- According to Cheshire: "it is firmly established that a foreign judgment is impeachable for fraud in the sense that upon proof of fraud, it cannot be enforced by action, in England.”
- "We are not so provincial as to say that every solution of a problem is wrong because we deal with it otherwise at home"; and we shall not brush aside foreign judicial processes unless doing so "would violate some fundamental principle of justice, some prevalent conception of good morals, some deep-rooted tradition of the common weal." Loucks v. Standard Oil Co, of New York, (1918) 224 N.Y.
- The respondent misrepresented his domicile status to the Nevada court to obtain the divorce decree. This misrepresentation constitutes fraud, impacting the decree's jurisdictional validity.
- The Nevada court's jurisdiction was based on the respondent’s fraudulent claim of domicile.
- The Nevada decree, therefore, lacks jurisdiction and cannot be recognized in India.
- The invalidity of the Nevada divorce decree means the appellant remains the respondent's lawful wife under Indian law.
- The appellant's claim for maintenance under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stands as she is still legally married to the respondent.
- The HC order was set aside and restored trail court’s order. Appeal was allowed.
COMMENTARY
[65.157] Foreign judgment obtained by fraud
- Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal. Fraud having a bearing on jurisdictional facts, vitiates all judicial acts, whether in rem or in personam.
- The doctrine of finality of litigation cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. No judgment of a court may be allowed to stand, if it has been obtained by fraud. All judgments, whether pronounced by domestic or foreign courts, are void if they are obtained by fraud, as fraud vitiates the proceedings of a court of justice. A judgment obtained by fraud is ‘non est’ in the eyes of the law and is a nullity.
- It can, therefore, be challenged in any court in appeal, in revision or even in collateral proceedings. Judgments in rem are not inviolable. A fraud may be by the party obtaining a judgment in his favour or upon the court pronouncing the judgment. Thus, a foreign judgment obtained by fraud will not operate as res judicata.
- A judgment may not be impeachable from within, it may be impeachable from without. Thus, it may not be permissible to plead that the court was mistaken, though it can be pleaded that the court was misled.