JUDICIAL ATTITUDE ON THE DIVORCE IN FOREIGN MARRIAGE

Abstract

In the case of Harmeeta Singh v. Rajat Taneja where wife was deserted by husband within six months of marriage, as she was bound to depart the marital home within 3 months of co-habitation with her husband in the USA. When she initiated a petition for maintenance under the Act in India then the High Court disposed of the interim application in the petition by awarding an order of restraint against the husband from continuing with the proceedings in the US Court in the divorce petition filed by the husband there and also asking him to place a copy of the order of the High Court before the US Court.

The Court given some interpretations while giving this order that even if the husband succeeded in getting a decree of divorce by the US that decree would be unreliable to obtain recognition by the Indian Court had jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the US Court would have to be recognized under Section 13, CPC. The Court then held that till the US decree was acknowledged in India, he would be held responsible of committing bigamy in India and would be accountable to face criminal action for that. The Court further held that the wife’s residence in the USA was very brief, temporary and casual and she may not be monetarily competent of prosecuting the litigation in the US Court, and hence the Delhi Courts would be appropriate Court.

In Venkat Perumal v. State of A.P., where an application for quashing of the proceedings of Section 498A IPC filed by an NRI husband against matrimonial cruelty meted out to her. The High Court observed that the offence under Section 498A IPC is a continuing offence and the mental harassment on the wife had continued during the stay with her parents at Hyderabad. The Court discarded argument of the husband that permit of the Central Government, as contemplated under Section 188 of the Code is necessary to prosecute and held that even otherwise, it is not a condition precedent to start criminal actions and the same may be attained, if need be, during trial and hence, it could not be said that the procedures were liable to be quashed on that ground. The Court also declined to influence its verdict with the divorce decree from the US Court produced by the husband.