Foreign matrimonial decrees need recognised jurisdiction and proper certification before they can be enforced in India.
A foreign matrimonial decree is not conclusive in India unless the foreign court had jurisdiction recognised by the law governing the marriage and the relief was granted on a ground available under that law, or the respondent voluntarily and effectively submitted to that forum; on those principles, the decree was held unenforceable in India. A photostat copy of the foreign judgment was not inadmissible merely because it was a photostat, but it still had to satisfy the statutory certification requirements for proof of a foreign public document, which it did not. The decree therefore could not be recognised, and the document tendered in proof was insufficient.
Issues: (i) Whether a foreign divorce decree obtained in matrimonial proceedings can be recognised and enforced in India when the foreign court assumed jurisdiction and granted relief on a basis not recognised by the law governing the marriage; (ii) whether a photostat copy of the foreign decree was admissible in evidence as proof of the foreign judgment.
Issue (i): Whether a foreign divorce decree obtained in matrimonial proceedings can be recognised and enforced in India when the foreign court assumed jurisdiction and granted relief on a basis not recognised by the law governing the marriage.
Analysis: Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 governs the conclusiveness of foreign judgments. In matrimonial matters, the foreign court is competent only if its jurisdiction is recognised by the law under which the parties were married, unless both parties voluntarily and unconditionally submit to that jurisdiction or the respondent effectively contests the claim there. The ground on which relief is granted must also be a ground available under the matrimonial law governing the marriage. A decree based on a ground not recognised by that law, or obtained without effective submission by the respondent, is not conclusive in India. Applying these principles, the foreign divorce decree was held inconsistent with the Hindu Marriage Act regime governing the marriage and was therefore unenforceable in India.
Conclusion: The foreign matrimonial decree was not recognised and could not be enforced in India; this was against the appellants and in favour of the respondent.
Issue (ii): Whether a photostat copy of the foreign decree was admissible in evidence as proof of the foreign judgment.
Analysis: Foreign judicial records may be proved through certified copies under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and copies made by mechanical process may constitute secondary evidence. However, a foreign judgment relied upon in court must satisfy the requirements relating to certification of foreign public documents, including the certificate contemplated by Section 86. The photostat copy was not inadmissible merely because it was a photostat copy, but it lacked the additional certification required for proof of the foreign judgment.
Conclusion: The photostat copy was not admissible in evidence for want of the requisite certification.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the foreign divorce decree was not capable of recognition in India and the document tendered in proof did not satisfy the evidentiary requirements for a foreign judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: A foreign matrimonial judgment is not conclusive in India unless the foreign court had jurisdiction recognised by the law governing the marriage and the relief granted is on a ground available under that law, or the respondent effectively and voluntarily submitted to that jurisdiction; proof of such a judgment must also satisfy the statutory requirements for foreign public documents and certified copies.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
