 Are Indian courts bound to give recognition to divorce decrees granted by

foreign courts?

Under Section 14 of Cpc it states that The Court shall presume, upon the
production of any document purporting to be a certified copy of a foreign
judgment, that such judgment was pronounced by a Court to competent
jurisdiction, unless the contrary appears on the record; but such presumption
may be displaced by proving want of jurisdiction.

Section 13 of Cpc is also needed to be viewed in this instant case : A foreign

judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated
upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any
of them claim litigating under the same title except,—

(a) where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction;

(b) where it has not been given on the merits of the case;

(c) where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an

incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of India in
cases in which such law is applicable;

(d) where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed
to natural justice;

(e) where it has been obtained by fraud;

(f) where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India.

It is crystal clear from the facts and the sections of Cpc, the person has not
gone beyond the policies of Indian constitution. According to Hindu law on
the ground of divorce the husband and wife had not seen for more than seven
years. The Indian courts are bound to give recognition to divorce decrees
granted by foreign courts under the section 14 of civil procedure Code as the
defendant has dissolved by a court in Nevada on the conditions of Lex fori and
Lex domicile. The respondent on the legal grounds and his personal rights with
regard to private international law and civil procedure code , the respondent
has all rights to claim the degree of divorce.
  Whether the wife is liable for Maintenance under Indian Laws.

The wife is not liable for maintenance under the following circumstances.The
applicant was mala fide & was lodged only to delay the execution of
the order passed against him. It may be mentioned here that the applicant had
not taken the plea of his wife's adultery when the main case was contested. The
Magistrate has to consider that Bama is living in adultery, there was no
justification for not paying the maintenance legally awarded to her upto the time
when she contracted any adulterous relationship. In his opinion no retrospective
effect could be given to an order and so he did not reopen the inquiry and
dismissed the objection filed by the applicant. He, however, observed that if the
objection of the applicant was meant to be an application for the cancellation of
the order of maintenance, it can be filed separately under Section 125 Cr. p.

The petition was filed after 7 year approximately by the appellant in which the
questions need to be raised why there is a delay of 7 years. The council would
like to convey that the adultery relationship was in some problem and couldn’t
claim the maintenance from him. Thus being this reason the divorce wife / ex-
wife trying to make false allegations on maintenance.

The mortal was bone fide & was lodged solely to delay the execution of the
order passed against him. it's going to be mentioned here that the mortal had
not taken the plea of his wife's criminal conversationonce the most case
was contested . The jurist should think about that Bama resides in criminal
conversation, there was no justification for not paying the
upkeep lawfully awarded to her upto the time once she contractile any
adulterous relationship. In his opinion no retrospective result might be given
to Associate in Nursing order then he didn't open up the inquiry
and discharged the objection filed by the mortal.