Foreign Courts Can’t Dissolve Hindu Marriages

Source: Indian Express  

Introduction  

The Gujarat High Court has ruled that Hindu marriages solemnized under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) cannot be dissolved by foreign courts, even if the couple later acquires foreign citizenship or resides abroad. The judgment reinforces the primacy of Indian personal laws and makes clear that Indian matrimonial laws continue to apply to such marriages wherever the parties may live. 

What was the Background of the Case? 

• The case involved an Indian-origin couple who married in Ahmedabad in 2008 under the Hindu Marriage Act and subsequently moved to Australia, where they acquired citizenship.  
• After returning to India, marital differences arose, and in 2016, the husband filed for divorce in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, citing "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" as grounds.  
• The wife challenged the Australian court's jurisdiction, arguing that their marriage was governed by the HMA, which does not recognize irretrievable breakdown as valid grounds for divorce.  
• Despite her objections, the Australian court granted the divorce decree, stating that as Australian citizens, they were entitled to the benefits of Australian law. 
• The wife then approached the Ahmedabad Family Court seeking restitution of conjugal rights and a declaration that the Australian divorce decree was null and void.  
• However, the family court dismissed her suit, reasoning that since both parties were Australian citizens, the foreign court's decision was valid and binding. 

What were the Court's Observations ? 

• The Gujarat High Court division bench, comprising Justices A Y Kogje and N S Sanjay Gowda, strongly disagreed with the family court's reasoning and made several crucial observations. 
• The court observed that "a Hindu marriage conducted in India in accordance with religious ceremonies and customs will always be governed by the provisions of the HMA and cannot be governed by any other law even if the parties acquire a new domicile or citizenship of any country in the world." 
• The bench noted that the couple's later acquisition of Australian citizenship was irrelevant to the governing law of their marriage, as what matters is that both parties profess the Hindu faith and agreed to bind their relationship under the HMA.  
• The court observed that allowing foreign laws to govern marriages performed under the HMA would lead to "anomalous results" and undermine the statutory framework established by Indian legislation.  
• The judges particularly noted that both parties were residing in India when the husband-initiated divorce proceedings in Australia, suggesting he was attempting to "invoke the beneficial provisions of Australian laws rather than face the prospect of securing a decree under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act." 

What are the Legal Principles Established? 

• The court established several fundamental legal principles regarding the dissolution of Hindu marriages performed in India.  
  • First, the citizenship or domicile of the parties after marriage has "absolutely no consequence" to a Hindu marriage governed by the HMA.  
  • Second, foreign courts can deal with such marriages and permit dissolution only under the provisions of the HMA, not under their own domestic laws.  
  • Third, the court reinforced that "irretrievable breakdown of marriage," while acceptable in jurisdictions like the United States and Australia, is not recognized under the HMA, despite repeated recommendations by Law Commission reports and occasional Supreme Court observations.  
• The bench clarified that foreign courts cannot unilaterally apply their divorce laws to HMA marriages and emphasized that any dissolution must conform to the specific grounds laid down in the Indian statute.  
• The court also noted that the deliberate absence of irretrievable breakdown as grounds in the HMA reflects how Hindu marriages have been legally conceived in India. 

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions? 

• The court's decision rests on several key legal provisions and precedents. Sections 13 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure govern the recognition of foreign judgments, with Section 13 stating that foreign judgments are conclusive unless delivered by courts without jurisdiction or not recognized under Indian law.  
• The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 specifies limited grounds for divorce, including cruelty, adultery, desertion, and mutual consent, but notably excludes irretrievable breakdown.  
• The court extensively relied on the Supreme Court's 1991 landmark decision in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Venkata Lakshmi, which established that for foreign divorce decrees to be valid in India, the grounds must be recognized under Indian law and both spouses must have freely submitted to the foreign court's jurisdiction. 
• The court also acknowledged the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, where divorce was granted on irretrievable breakdown grounds under Article 142(1), but noted this was an extraordinary discretionary power exercised to "do complete justice." 

What is Section 13 and 14 of CPC ? 

• Section 13: When Foreign Judgment Not Conclusive 
  • Purpose: This section outlines the exceptions when a foreign judgment will NOT be treated as conclusive/binding in Indian courts. 
  • General Rule: Foreign judgments are normally conclusive on matters directly adjudicated between the same parties or those claiming under them with the same title. 
  • Six Exceptions - A foreign judgment is NOT conclusive when: 
    • Lack of Jurisdiction (a) - The foreign court lacked competent jurisdiction 
    • Not on Merits (b) - The judgment wasn't given on the actual merits of the case 
    • Legal Error (c) - Based on incorrect international law or refusal to recognize applicable Indian law 
    • Natural Justice Violation (d) - The proceedings violated principles of natural justice 
    • Fraud (e) - The judgment was obtained through fraudulent means 
    • Illegal Claim (f) - The judgment supports a claim that breaches Indian law 
• Section 14: Presumption as to Foreign Judgments 
  • Purpose: Establishes the procedural presumption regarding foreign judgments and how to challenge them. 
  • Key Elements: 
  • Presumption: Courts will presume a certified copy of a foreign judgment was pronounced by a competent court 
  • Burden of Proof: The presumption stands unless contrary evidence appears on the record 
  • Rebuttal: This presumption can be overcome by proving the foreign court lacked jurisdiction 
• These sections work together - Section 13 provides the substantive grounds for rejecting foreign judgments, while Section 14 establishes the procedural framework for how courts should initially treat and evaluate foreign judgments. 

Conclusion 

The Gujarat High Court has ruled that Hindu marriages performed in India will always be governed by the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), even if the couple later moves abroad or takes foreign citizenship. This protects the traditional Indian system of marriage laws and will affect many people in the Indian diaspora facing cross-border matrimonial disputes. The judgment has also revived the debate on whether Indian law should add “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” as a ground for divorce, to balance tradition with modern needs.