Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi

Supreme Court of India · 9 July 1991 · 2 judges · 1991 SCR (2) 821, 1991 SCC (3) 451

A foreign divorce decree passed by a court lacking jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act, on a ground unknown to that Act, against a wife who did not submit to the forum, cannot be recognised in India.

Facts

The first appellant and first respondent married at Tirupati in 1975 under Hindu law and separated in 1978. The husband obtained a divorce decree in 1980 from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, USA, claiming 90 days' residence there, on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The wife replied under protest, without submitting to the jurisdiction, and was neither present nor represented. The parties had last lived together in New Orleans, Louisiana, not Missouri. In 1981 the husband married the second appellant, and the wife filed a bigamy complaint. The Magistrate discharged the appellants relying on a photostat copy of the Missouri decree. The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the discharge, holding the photostat copy inadmissible, and the appellants appealed.

Questions before the Court

Whether a foreign decree dissolving a Hindu marriage, passed by a court without jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act and on a ground not available under it, can be recognised in India.
How the clauses of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to foreign matrimonial judgments.
Whether a photostat copy of the foreign decree was admissible in evidence.

What the Court held

The Missouri court had no jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act, since the marriage was not solemnised there, the parties did not last reside there and the wife did not reside there; and irretrievable breakdown is not a ground for divorce under that Act.
Under Section 13(a) CPC, a competent court is only one which the law under which the parties married recognises as competent, unless both parties voluntarily and unconditionally submit to it. Under Section 13(b), a judgment is on the merits only if given on a ground available under that law after a real contest or consent.
A foreign judgment founded on a jurisdiction or ground not recognised by the law under which the parties married is unenforceable under Section 13(c) and 13(f). Natural justice under Section 13(d) requires that the respondent could effectively contest; fraud under Section 13(e) may relate to jurisdictional facts.
Rule: the jurisdiction assumed and grounds of relief must accord with the matrimonial law of the parties, subject to three exceptions: the respondent's domicile or habitual residence with a ground available under that law; voluntary and effective submission and contest; or the respondent's consent.
The photostat copy was not inadmissible as such, but was inadmissible for want of certification by the Indian Government's representative under Section 86 of the Evidence Act. The appeal was dismissed and the Magistrate directed to proceed.

Why it matters

The judgment lays down rules for recognising foreign matrimonial judgments in India by interpreting each clause of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, tying recognition to the matrimonial law under which the parties married. The Court states that the rule protects women from the rule that a wife's domicile follows her husband's. It also explains when certified copies of foreign judicial records are admissible under Sections 74, 76 and 86 of the Evidence Act.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“Hence, the only law that can be applicable to the matrimonial disputes is the one under which the parties are married, and no other law. When, therefore, a foreign judgment is founded on a jurisdiction or on ground not recognised by such law, it is a judgment which is in defiance of the Law. Hence, it is not conclusive of the matters adjudicated therein and therefore, unenforceable in this country.”

Sawant, J.Page 10 of the judgment

“From the aforesaid discussion the following rule can be deduced for recognising foreign matrimonial judgment in this country. The jurisdiction assumed by the foreign court as well as the grounds on which the relief is granted must be in accordance with the matrimonial law under which the parties are married.”

Sawant, J.Page 10 of the judgment

“Since with regard to the jurisdiction of the forum as well as the ground on which it is passed the foreign decree in the present case is not in accordance with the Act under which the parties were married, and the respondent had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the court or consented to its passing, it cannot be recognised by the courts in this country and is, therefore, unenforceable.”

Sawant, J.Page 11 of the judgment

“A mere filing of the reply to the claim under protest and without submitting to the jurisdiction of the court, or an appearance in the Court either in person or through a representative for objecting to the jurisdiction of the Court, should not be considered as a decision on the merits of the case.”

Sawant, J.Page 9 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Section 13, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 19, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 86, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Now: BSA 88 (NCRB correspondence table)
Section 74(1)(iii), Indian Evidence Act, 1872Now: BSA 74(1). (NCRB correspondence table)
Section 76, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Now: BSA 75 (NCRB correspondence table)
Section 65(e) and (f), Indian Evidence Act, 1872Now: BSA 60 (NCRB correspondence table)

Case and bench

Parties: Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi
Case: Criminal Appeal No. 385 of 1991
Decided: 9 July 1991
Bench: P.B. Sawant, Rangnath Misra (CJ)
Opinions: Unanimous. Judgment of the Court delivered by Sawant, J.

Questions on this case

2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.