The Gujarat High Court has ruled that a divorce granted by a foreign court cannot dissolve a marriage solemnised in India under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA). The Court clarified that rights and remedies available under the HMA remain unaffected even if the parties later change their citizenship or domicile.
The Case
A Bench of Justices AY Kogje and NS Sanjay Gowda was hearing appeals filed by a woman challenging the validity of a divorce granted by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The couple had married in July 2008 in Ahmedabad and later moved to Australia, where the husband acquired citizenship. Their child was born in 2013, but by 2014 marital differences had emerged.
In March 2016, the husband approached the Australian court seeking divorce and custody of the child. In November 2016, the Australian court granted him a divorce, despite the wife contesting its jurisdiction. She subsequently filed suits in India, including one seeking restitution of conjugal rights and another seeking a declaration that the Australian decree was null and void.
In March 2023, the family court rejected her suits, holding that the foreign divorce was valid and conclusive, leaving no cause of action for her claims.
Gujarat HC’s Findings
The High Court overturned this decision, holding that:
- Only Indian courts have jurisdiction over marriages solemnised under the HMA, irrespective of whether the parties acquire foreign citizenship or domicile.
- Citizenship has no relevance to the applicability of the HMA, and marriages solemnised in India will continue to be governed by Indian law.
- The family court must decide on merits whether the foreign decree is conclusive, and the plaint cannot be rejected mechanically.
The Court observed:
“If the argument that a marriage celebrated in India under the provisions of the HMA will be governed by a law of a foreign country only because the parties to the marriage have acquired citizenship of another country is accepted, it will lead to certain anomalous results.”
The Bench also relied on Section 13(c) of the Civil Procedure Code and past Supreme Court rulings, which allow Indian courts to declare foreign judgments not conclusive if they go against Indian law or natural justice.
Outcome
The High Court set aside the family court’s orders and allowed the wife’s appeals, directing that her suits be decided on merits.
Advocates Aaditya D Bhatt and Chandni S Joshi appeared for the appellants, while Advocates Kshitij M Amin and Rahul R Dholakia represented the respondents.
