Foreign divorce decree lacked jurisdiction and fraud tainted recognition, leaving the wife's maintenance claim intact.

A foreign matrimonial decree is recognised in India only if the foreign court had jurisdiction under Indian private international law; domicile or bona fide residence is a jurisdictional fact, and a recital of jurisdiction is not conclusive if disproved by evidence. A decree obtained by fraud going to jurisdiction is not binding in India under section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. On the facts, the husband had only simulated residence and domicile in Nevada to obtain the divorce, so the decree was procured without jurisdiction and by misrepresentation. The foreign divorce was therefore not recognised in India and did not bar the wife's maintenance claim under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

---

---

Issues: Whether a foreign divorce decree obtained on the basis of an asserted domicile and residence in the foreign forum was entitled to recognition in India, and whether such decree barred the wife's claim for maintenance under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Analysis: Recognition of a foreign matrimonial decree depends on the rules of Indian private international law and on the competence of the foreign court. A foreign decree may be collaterally attacked where the foreign court lacked jurisdiction, and domicile or bona fide residence is a jurisdictional fact. A recital of jurisdiction in the foreign judgment is not conclusive and may be disproved by satisfactory evidence. If the decree is procured by fraud going to jurisdiction, it is not binding in India under section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the fraud is material even though the merits of the matrimonial dispute are not in issue. The Court found that the husband had only simulated residence and domicile in Nevada, had gone there solely to obtain a divorce, and had left soon after securing the decree. The foreign divorce was therefore obtained without jurisdiction and by misrepresentation as to jurisdictional facts.

Conclusion: The foreign divorce decree was not entitled to recognition in India and did not defeat the wife's maintenance claim; the appeal was allowed and the trial court's order was restored.

---