NARASIMHA RAO V. Y. VENKATALAKSHMI (1991) 3 SCC 451
FACT
- The case involves Narasimha, who married Venkata in India as per Hindu law. They lived together in New Orleans, after which Narasimha moved to the USA.
- In 1978, Narasimha obtained a divorce decree from a Missouri court based on the breakdown of marriage. However, Venkata did not submit to the jurisdiction of the Missouri court.
- Narasimha remarried, leading to a criminal complaint for bigamy by Venkata.
- The Magistrate initially discharged them based on the Missouri decree. The High Court reversed this decision, questioning the validity of the foreign divorce decree.
- Present appeal against the order of HC.
ISSUE
- Whether the Missouri court's divorce decree should be recognized and enforced in India, despite it being granted without the presence of Y. Venkatalakshmi and on grounds not recognized under Indian law. This raised questions about jurisdiction, the validity of the grounds for divorce, and adherence to Indian legal provisions, particularly those outlined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
RULE
- Section 13, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Lists conditions under which foreign judgments are not conclusive (e.g., lack of jurisdiction, not on merits, contrary to Indian law, opposed to natural justice, obtained by fraud).
- The foreign court must have jurisdiction as recognized by the law under which the parties are married.
- The decree must be on grounds available under the matrimonial law governing the marriage.
HELD
- The Missouri court assumed jurisdiction based on Y. Narasimha Rao's residency, which was challenged as being a temporary and not a habitual residence.
- The divorce was granted on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, not recognized under Indian law (Hindu Marriage Act).
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Specifies grounds and jurisdiction for divorce. The Missouri court's decree was not in accordance with this Act.
- The respondent must have voluntarily submitted to the foreign court’s jurisdiction.
- The proceedings must not violate natural justice (e.g., respondent must be able to effectively contest).
- The Supreme Court held that the Missouri court's decree was not enforceable in India because it did not comply with the Hindu Marriage Act and the conditions under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- The court emphasized the need for Indian courts to only recognize foreign matrimonial judgments if they meet specific criteria to ensure fairness and justice.
- The appeal by Y. Narasimha Rao was dismissed. The foreign divorce decree was not recognized, upholding the legal provisions and public policy considerations under Indian law.
COMMENTARY
- In Anubha v Vikas Aggarwal, the respondent obtained a decree of divorce from the Connecticut Court of USA. The appellant did not submit to the jurisdiction of that court, nor did she consent to the grant of divorce by that court. It was held, therefore, that the foreign decree was neither recognisable nor enforceable in India