Case Study: Y. Narasimha Rao and Ors v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and Ors

“The decree dissolving the marriage passed by the foreign court is without jurisdiction according to the Hindu Marriage Act as neither the marriage was celebrated nor the parties last resided together nor the respondent resided within the jurisdiction of that Court.”

Citation: (1991) 3 SCC 451

Date of Judgment: 9^th July, 1991

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Ranganath Misra (CJ), P.B. Sawant (J)

Facts

• The first appellant(male) and first respondent(female) were married at Tirupati on February 27, 1975, according to Hindu Law. They separated in July 1978. The first appellant filed for the dissolution of marriage in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, USA, in 1980.
• The first respondent sent her reply under protest, and the decree for dissolution of marriage was passed ex parte on February 19, 1980, in her absence. The first appellant also filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the Sub-Court of Tirupati.
• However, the appellant applied for dismissal of this petition after obtaining the Missouri decree, and the Sub-Court dismissed it on August 14, 1991. The first appellant remarried on November 2, 1981, which prompted the first respondent to file a criminal complaint for bigamy.

Decision of the trial court

The learned Magistrate discharged the appellants based on the Missouri decree of divorce, stating that the first respondent failed to make out a prima facie case of bigamy.

Decision of the High Court

The High Court set aside the Magistrate’s decision, holding that the photostat copy of the Missouri judgment was inadmissible as it was not properly certified under Indian law.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the Missouri Court had no jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to pass a decree of dissolution of marriage since the marriage was solemnized in India, and the parties last resided together in New Orleans, Louisiana—not Missouri. The decree passed by the Missouri court was based on “irretrievable breakdown of marriage,” a ground not recognized under the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, the foreign judgment was unenforceable in India. The Court ruled that the High Court was correct in setting aside the Magistrate’s order, emphasizing that the Missouri judgment was inadmissible and without jurisdiction.

Key legal issues discussed

1. Whether the Missouri Court had jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act to grant the decree of dissolution of marriage?

No

The Supreme Court explained that the jurisdiction of a court under the Hindu Marriage Act is determined by the place where the marriage was solemnized, where the respondent resides, or where the couple last resided together. In this case, the couple married in India, last resided together in New Orleans, and the first respondent never resided in Missouri.

Supreme Court gave its reasoning in Para 14 of the Case which reads as “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 recognized by the courts in this country and is, therefore, unenforceable.”

Therefore, the Missouri Court could not have jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage under Indian law.

The Court referred to the Case of Smt. Satya v. Teja Singh^[1], in which The Court dealt with issues of fraud in foreign judgments, particularly concerning jurisdiction. The Court held that the fraud could pertain not only to the merits of the case but also to jurisdictional facts. This case was referenced by the Supreme Court to highlight that the first appellant misrepresented his residency status in Missouri, thereby misleading the foreign court into assuming jurisdiction

The Supreme Court pointed out that the “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The Missouri Court passed its decree based on this ground, which is not recognized under Indian law, making the judgment unenforceable.

2. Whether the decree for dissolution of marriage passed by the Missouri Court can be recognized in India?

No

Under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), a foreign judgment must meet several conditions to be recognized in India. The Missouri decree failed to meet two crucial conditions:

• it was not passed by a competent court, and
• it was not based on the merits of the case.

The first respondent never submitted to the jurisdiction of the Missouri Court, and the decree was passed ex parte.

Extracting the reasoning of the court from para number 12, the Court says “Clause (a) of Section 13 states that a foreign judgment shall not be recognized if it has not been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction. We are of the view that this clause should be interpreted to mean that only that court will be a court of competent jurisdiction which the Act or the law under which the parties are married recognizes as a court of competent jurisdiction to entertain the matrimonial dispute.”

Moreover, the Missouri judgment was based on a ground not recognized by Indian law—irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Since the Hindu Marriage Act governs the couple’s marriage, only grounds mentioned in the Act are valid for divorce. Therefore, the judgment was unenforceable in India.

3. Whether the High Court was correct in rejecting the photostat copy of the Missouri judgment as evidence?

Yes

The High Court rejected the photostat copy of the Missouri judgment on the grounds that it was not properly certified under Section 86 of the Indian Evidence Act, which requires a certified copy of a foreign judgment to be authenticated by a representative of the Indian government in the foreign country. The Supreme Court upheld this reasoning.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, noting that the photostat copy of the Missouri decree was inadmissible because it lacked the certification required under Section 86. The Act mandates that such certification is necessary to ensure the authenticity and accuracy of foreign judgments before they are accepted in Indian courts.

Even if the Missouri judgment had been properly certified, it would still have been unenforceable due to the lack of jurisdiction and invalid grounds for divorce, as discussed in Issue No. 1. Therefore, the inadmissibility of the photostat copy was only one aspect of the larger issue concerning the enforceability of foreign judgments that do not comply with Indian law. However, the Supreme Court further ruled that even if the photostat copy had been certified, the Missouri decree would still be unenforceable due to the lack of jurisdiction and the ground of divorce being unrecognized under Indian law.

^[1] 1975 AIR 105.

Download the Judgment