Supreme Court order and discussion

Though the husband wife spent most time together post marriage in US, his family residence is at Pune

Conditions under which a foreign decree of divorce would be recognised

(i) the relief has been granted on a ground available under the matrimonial law governing the parties;

(ii) 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; or

(iii) the opposite party had consented to the grant of the relief.

On December 25, 2005, a couple married in Chembur, Mumbai, India, according to Hindu customs. On January 14, 2006, he left for the US and she joined him on January 22, 2006. At the time of their marriage, both were residing in the United States of America as he though an Indian citizen, was a green card holder in the US.In December 2007, both of them travelled to India for a few weeks. They stayed together for one night at their home in Pune, after which she went to Mumbai to stay with her parents. Thereafter, he left for the US on January 17, 2008, while she joined him on February 27, 2008, and they lived together until September 2008.However, on September 25, 2008, she filed for divorce in the US before the Circuit Court for the County of Oakland. Subsequently, he was served a notice on September 27, 2008 and he replied to her divorce petition on October 3, 2008 and filed a written statement on October 13, 2008 contending that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to handle the divorce case since they both are governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.A notice of pretrial and notice of hearing, both dated December 2, 2008, were sent to him. However, after sending his written submission through post, he never showed up before the court.Meanwhile, he went back to India and filed a divorce petition on October 24, 2008, before the Family Court, Pune under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. He claimed jurisdiction before the Pune Court on the ground that they resided at Pune in their matrimonial home.However, on February 13, 2009, the Circuit Court for the County of Oakland, Family Division, passed its judgement effectively dissolving their marriage and granted a decree of divorce, holding that there had been a breakdown of the marriage and there was no reasonable likelihood of its preservation.The Oakland Court held that neither party was entitled to spousal support. However, she was awarded all property in her name, possession, and/or control, including checking and savings accounts at Bank of America and all personal property in her possession.The husband was directed to pay her a sum of $42,119/76 as her share of funds transferred by him from the parties' Charter One account to India between May 2006 and June 2008, which totalled $187,000. He was awarded the remaining balance in the joint Charter One accounts along with his personal possessions, including his car and furniture. He was further directed to pay a sum of $2,000 to the respondent (wife) for her attorney's fees.Meanwhile, since the husband had filed another divorce case in Pune, she filed an application before the Family Court, Pune contesting the jurisdiction of the Pune Court and the maintainability of the divorce petition filed under the HMA.On September 14, 2009, the Pune family court held that they have jurisdiction and the US decree of divorce was granted on the ground of breakdown of marriage, which is not a recognised ground under the Hindu Marriage Act.Since the marriage was solemnised according to Hindu rites and rituals in India, the Hindu Marriage Act would apply to the parties even if they had settled abroad. The Pune family court further observed that he had never submitted to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in the US and had not participated in those proceedings. 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.Feeling aggrieved, she filed an appeal in Bombay High Court on the ground that they are domiciled in the US and their marriage does not fall under the ambit of the HMA.The High Court allowed her appeal by holding that both parties are domiciled in the US and not in India, and that the Hindu Marriage Act 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.The Bombay High Court noted that the Oakland Court had granted the divorce on merits, equitably dividing the parties' properties and deciding on spousal support. The order of the Family Court, Pune, concluding that the parties had last resided together in Pune, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the Pune Court, was set aside.Feeling aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal in Supreme Court and on January 15, 2026 won the case.The Supreme Court gave their judgement in this case (CIVIL APPEAL NO.1342 OF 2013) on January 15, 2026.The Supreme Court observed that the parties were married according to Hindu rituals at Chembur, Mumbai, India. As such, the law applicable to their marriage, and consequently to any proceedings for divorce, would be the Hindu Marriage Act.It is evident that both parties spent the greater part of their time, post-marriage, in the US. However, the appellant-husband had a family residence at Aungh, Pune, and when the parties returned to India to visit, they would reside there, however briefly.The Supreme Court in the case of Y.Narasimha Rao v. Y.Venkata Lakshmi (1991) 3 SCC 451, this Court interpreted Section 13 of the CPC and laid down the conditions under which a foreign decree of divorce would be recognised.The Supreme Court held that such a decree would be recognised only where:The court further held that the principles of natural justice must be satisfied, and just serving the 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.In the present case, the US Court granted a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage . This ground is not recognised under the Hindu Marriage Act, which is the matrimonial law applicable to the parties.Further, while the husband was duly served, he 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.The Supreme Court said: “The foreign decree accordingly does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Y. Narasimha Rao, and the principles of natural justice cannot be said to have been complied with.”Though this foreign divorce decree is not enforceable, divorce is granted in India under Article 142The Supreme Court said that in light of the foregoing, they find that the foreign decree is not conclusive and cannot be sustained as a valid decree of divorce between the parties. Consequently, the question of which Court, whether the Family Court, Pune or the Circuit Court for the County of Oakland, had jurisdiction to entertain the divorce proceedings, need not be conclusively decided in the present proceedings.The Supreme Court said that they find it necessary to bring a quietus to this matter. The parties have been separated since 2008, nearly eighteen years now, and it is manifest that no matrimonial bond subsists between them. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court found it appropriate to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and to grant the parties a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.The appeal is accordingly allowed, on the above terms. The impugned order and judgment of the High Court dated 4th March 2010 is set aside. The Registry to draw up a decree of divorce accordingly. The petition for divorce instituted at Pune shall stand closed and disposed off in view of the decree granted by this Court. Pending applications, if any, to stand disposed of.