The Supreme Court ruled that a US divorce granted on “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” is not valid under the Hindu Marriage Act. However, using Article 142, the Court granted divorce to the couple after 18 years of separation.
The Supreme Court of India has recently delivered an important judgment clarifying the legal position on foreign divorce decrees, especially in cases governed by the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA). The Court set aside a Bombay High Court ruling and held that a divorce granted by a foreign court on a ground not recognised under Indian law cannot be treated as valid or binding in India.
At the same time, the Court used its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant a final divorce to the couple, considering that they had been living separately for nearly 18 years.
The case was heard by a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta. The dispute arose from a marriage solemnised in India under Hindu rituals, which later became the subject of parallel divorce proceedings in the United States and India.
The Supreme Court relied on the landmark judgment in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi (1991) and clearly explained why the US court’s divorce decree could not be accepted in India. The Court observed,
“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 HMA, which is the matrimonial law applicable to the parties. Further, while the appellant-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 foreign decree accordingly does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Y. Narasimha Rao (supra), and the principles of natural justice cannot be said to have been complied with.”
The facts of the case show that the husband and wife got married on December 25, 2005, in Mumbai according to Hindu customs. After marriage, they moved to the United States where they lived together for some time. However, their relationship started deteriorating, and by September 2008, they had separated.
Soon after, the wife filed for divorce in a Michigan court in the United States. The husband responded by sending a written objection through post, stating that the US court did not have jurisdiction and that their marriage was governed by Indian law, specifically the Hindu Marriage Act. However, he did not appear personally or participate further in the US proceedings.
While the case was ongoing in the US, the husband returned to India and filed a divorce petition before the Family Court in Pune, claiming that Indian courts had jurisdiction since the marriage was solemnised in India and they had a matrimonial home in Pune.
Despite the husband’s objections, the US court granted a divorce on February 13, 2009, on the ground of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage.” The court also passed financial directions, including payment of money and legal fees by the husband.
Later, the Pune Family Court ruled in favour of the husband, stating that the US divorce decree was not valid under Indian law because “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” is not a recognised ground under the Hindu Marriage Act. However, this decision was overturned by the Bombay High Court, which held that since both parties were living in the US, the foreign court had proper jurisdiction.
The matter then reached the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the husband argued that Indian courts had jurisdiction because both parties were Indian citizens and the marriage was conducted in India. He also pointed out that the US decree was effectively ex-parte since he had not participated fully in the proceedings.
On the other hand, the wife argued that both parties were domiciled in the United States and had lived there together, and therefore, the US court’s decree should be treated as valid under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
After examining the facts, the Supreme Court framed two key issues: whether the foreign divorce decree was valid and binding, and whether the Court should exercise its powers under Article 142 to finally settle the dispute.
The Court made it clear that since the marriage was conducted under Hindu rites in India, the Hindu Marriage Act would apply. It noted,
“The parties were married as per Hindu rites and rituals at Chembur, Mumbai, India. As such, the law applicable to their marriage, and consequently to any proceedings for divorce, would be the HMA. 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 Court ultimately held that the US divorce decree was not valid in India because it failed to meet the requirements of Indian law and principles of natural justice. However, instead of sending the parties back into prolonged litigation, the Court decided to bring a final end to the dispute.
ALSO READ: Foreign Law Cannot Dissolve Marriage Under Hindu Marriage Act: Gujarat High Court
Recognising that the couple had been living separately since 2008 and there was no possibility of reconciliation, the Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142. It stated,
“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. We do, however, 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, this Court finds 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”.
With this, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Bombay High Court’s judgment, while also granting a final divorce to the parties.
This judgment is significant because it reinforces that foreign divorce decrees must comply with Indian matrimonial laws to be valid in India. At the same time, it shows the Supreme Court’s practical approach in using Article 142 to ensure complete justice and avoid unnecessary prolonged litigation.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Vadodara Crash Case
