Supreme Court: While deliberating over this matter wherein the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., had to decide whether decree of divorce passed by the Oakland Circuit Court, USA is conclusive and binding on the parties. Upon perusal of the case’s trajectory and facts, the Court held such decree to be inconclusive and unsustainable as valid decree of divorce between the parties herein.
The Court reasoned that the Circuit Court had granted the divorce decree on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which is not a recognised ground under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA); furthermore, appellant (husband) had not voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of a foreign forum. However, since the parties have been separated for 18 years, with no scope of reconciliation, the Court deemed it fit to dissolve their marriage on ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
Background and Legal Trajectory
The husband is an Indian citizen, holding a green card in the USA. The parties got married in December 2005 in Mumbai according to Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of their marriage, both parties were residing in the USA. In December 2007, both parties came to India for a few weeks. The husband left for the US on 17 January 2008, and the respondent (wife) joined him on 27 February 2008, whereafter they lived together until September 2008.
In September 2008 the wife filed for divorce in the US before the Circuit Court for the County of Oakland. The husband was served notice, and he filed a written statement in October 2008 contesting the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction to try the divorce complaint as the parties were governed by HMA. When notices for pretrial and hearing were sent to the husband, he sent his written submission through post and never appeared in person before the Court. The Circuit Court subsequently passed an ex-parte divorce decree in 2009 thereby dissolving the parties’ marriage on ground of irretrievable breakdown with no reasonable likelihood of preservation.
While the aforestated proceedings were ongoing, the husband returned to India and filed a divorce petition before Pune Family Court in 2008 under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the HMA, claiming jurisdiction before Pune Court on the ground that the parties’ residence at Pune constituted their matrimonial home, as they had resided there during their visits to India. The wife filed an application contesting Pune Family Court’s jurisdiction and maintainability of husband’s application. Subsequently, Pune Family Court rejected the wife’s application holding that US decree of divorce was granted on the ground of breakdown of marriage, which is not a recognised ground under the HMA. Since the marriage was solemnised according to Hindu rites and rituals in India, the HMA would apply to the parties even if they had settled abroad thereafter. It found that the matrimonial home was at Aungh, Pune, as the parties had stayed there during their visits to India, even if briefly, and that it was the place where they last resided together in India.
Aggrieved, the wife approached Bombay High Court, wherein Pune Family Court’s order was set aside. The High Court held that both parties are domiciled in the US and not in India, and that the HMA is therefore inapplicable to them. The High Court observed that the parties last resided together in Oakland, Michigan, US, and accordingly held that the Circuit Court for the County of Oakland had jurisdiction over the matter.
Aggrieved, the husband therefore approached the Supreme Court.
Court’s Assessment
Perusing the facts of the case, the Court observed that it is indisputable that marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably with no scope for reconciliation. The Court thus had to consider whether Circuit Court’s decree could be held conclusive and sustainable and whether this case is appropriate for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The Court pointed out that the parties were married as per Hindu rites and rituals at Chembur, Mumbai, India; therefore, the law applicable to their marriage, and consequently to any proceedings for divorce, would be the HMA. Evidently both parties spent greater part of their time, post-marriage, in the US. However, the husband had a family residence at Aungh, Pune, and when the parties returned to India to visit, they would reside there, even if briefly.
The Court referred to Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi, (1991) 3 SCC 451, wherein Section 13, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) was interpreted and following conditions for recognition of foreign divorce decrees were laid down:
-
the relief has been granted on a ground available under the matrimonial law governing the parties
-
the opposite party had voluntarily and effectively submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign forum and contested the claim on a valid ground available under the applicable matrimonial law
-
the opposite party had consented to the grant of the relief.
Furthermore, in Y. Narasimha Rao (supra) the Court had emphasised that principles of natural justice must be satisfied, and that mere service of summons upon the opposite party in a foreign proceeding is not sufficient and the opposite party must have had a meaningful opportunity to and must have effectively participated in and contested those proceedings.
Coming onto the present case, the Court noted that US Court granted a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which is not recognised under HMA, which is the matrimonial law applicable to the parties. Moreover, husband was duly served notices, he however, 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.
Therefore, the Court found that conditions laid down in Y. Narasimha Rao (supra) were not satisfied and principles of natural justice could not be said to have been complied with. Hence, the Court held that US Circuit Court decree as inconclusive and unsustainable. The Court clarified that the question of which Court had jurisdiction to entertain the divorce proceedings between the parties herein, need not be conclusively decided in the present proceedings.
However, intending to bring quietus to the issue, the Court noted that the parties have been separated since 2008 (18 years) with no matrimonial bond subsisting between them. Therefore, in exercise of Article 142 powers, the Court granted the parties a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
[KM v. KK, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1342 OF 2013, order dated 15-1-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Appellant(s): Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Mr. S. Tridev Sagar, Adv. Mr. Shruti Sharma, Adv. Ms. Usha Bhaskar, Adv. M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sarwate, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Amit Shahi, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Sudershan Goel, Adv. Mr. P. N. Puri, AOR
