Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 169 views

    Satya v. Teja Singh: Case Comment: Submitted By: Radhika Aggarwal (20158)

    Uploaded by

    cherry
    The Supreme Court ruled that the divorce decree granted by a court in Nevada, USA to the respondent husband was not valid or applicable in India for the following three reasons: 1) The husband had obtained the divorce in Nevada by falsely claiming to be a resident of Nevada, when in fact he did not have a bona fide domicile in Nevada. 2) Recognition of the Nevada divorce would facilitate fraud, as the husband left Nevada soon after obtaining the divorce. 3) Under Indian law, a foreign judgment can be denied recognition if the foreign court did not have proper jurisdiction over the matter.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Satya v. Teja Singh: Case Comment: Submitted By: Radhika Aggarwal (20158)

    Uploaded by

    cherry
    169 views7 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the divorce decree granted by a court in Nevada, USA to the respondent husband was not valid or applicable in India for the following three reasons: 1) The husband had obtained the divorce in Nevada by falsely claiming to be a resident of Nevada, when in fact he did not have a bona fide domicile in Nevada. 2) Recognition of the Nevada divorce would facilitate fraud, as the husband left Nevada soon after obtaining the divorce. 3) Under Indian law, a foreign judgment can be denied recognition if the foreign court did not have proper jurisdiction over the matter.

    Original Description:

    Satya v. Teja Singh

    Original Title

    cpc ppt

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the divorce decree granted by a court in Nevada, USA to the respondent husband was not valid or applicable in India for the following three reasons: 1) The husband had obtained the divorce in Nevada by falsely claiming to be a resident of Nevada, when in fact he did not have a bona fide domicile in Nevada. 2) Recognition of the Nevada divorce would facilitate fraud, as the husband left Nevada soon after obtaining the divorce. 3) Under Indian law, a foreign judgment can be denied recognition if the foreign court did not have proper jurisdiction over the matter.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    169 views7 pages

    Satya v. Teja Singh: Case Comment: Submitted By: Radhika Aggarwal (20158)

    Uploaded by

    cherry
    The Supreme Court ruled that the divorce decree granted by a court in Nevada, USA to the respondent husband was not valid or applicable in India for the following three reasons: 1) The husband had obtained the divorce in Nevada by falsely claiming to be a resident of Nevada, when in fact he did not have a bona fide domicile in Nevada. 2) Recognition of the Nevada divorce would facilitate fraud, as the husband left Nevada soon after obtaining the divorce. 3) Under Indian law, a foreign judgment can be denied recognition if the foreign court did not have proper jurisdiction over the matter.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 7

    Satya v.

    Teja Singh: Case


    Comment
    Submitted by: Radhika Aggarwal (20158)
    Facts
    • Satya, the appealing party, wedded the respondent Teja Singh on July 1, 1955, according to  Hindu rituals. Both
    were Indian residents and were domiciled in India at the hour of their marriage.
    • Respondent left for U.S.A.
    • The appellant and her young children remained to dwell in India in all these five years.
    • The appellant filed a motion under section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, stating that the respondent had
    forgotten to provide for her and the two minor children.
    • Respondent refuted the claim saying that his marriage with the appellant had ended on December 30, 1964, by a
    divorce decision issued by the "Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada and for the County of
    Washoe, United States of America.“
    • Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jullundur and the Additional Sessions Judge declared that the respondent having
    not "permanently settled" in the State of Nevada, and the appellant and respondent's marriage could only be
    dissolved in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Hence, appellant was not bound by the divorce
    decree.
    • In further revision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court decided in favour of the respondent on the grounds that
    "the petitioner was domiciled" in Nevada "at the important time of the beginning of the processes for divorce, that
    "during marriage, the domicile of the wife follows the domicile of the husband, relying on the ruling in Le
    Mesurier v. Le Mesurier . An appeal against this decision was made in the Supreme court. The ruling in the case
    was made by Justice Chandrachud J.
    Questions Before the Court
    • “Whether a Hindu marriage solemnised in this country can be legitimately terminated by a decree
    of divorce given by a foreign court," is how the High Court phrased the issue for discussion.

    • To highlight the genuine contentious issue the Supreme Court framed the issue as - Is the divorce
    judgement issued by the Nevada Court in the United States of America admissible in India?
    Judgement
    • The supreme court ruled in favour of the appellant and held that although the parties are considered as
    divorced in Nevada, their connection of matrimony will still be intact in India, where they currently reside.
    • Hence, the divorce judgement issued by the Nevada Court in the United States of America was made not
    admissible in India.
    • No rule of private international law could compel a wife to accede to a ruling obtained by the husband
    through deceit, thus the courts will have to use their remaining authority to prevent blatant injustice.
    • The appeal was granted with costs,.
    • The High court’s decision was set aside and the earlier decision was reinstated.
    Rationale
    • According to paragraph 1 of the petition the respondent filed with the Nevada court, the respondent
    contended that he has been a bona fide resident of and domiciled in the County of Washoe, State of Nevada,
    for more than six weeks prior to the filing of this action, and he continues to be so today with the intention of
    remaining there indefinitely. along with the fact that he has been physically, corporeally present in the County
    and State in question for longer than six weeks.
    • In paragraph 4 of the same the respondent contended that his wife (the appellant in the present case) is
    residing with her parents along with their two minor daughters by her own free will and is being supported by
    her parents.
    • In paragraph 6 he contends that the parties have been living separately and apart for more than three years
    without cohabiting, and that there is no chance of reunion.
    • The Nevada court based its decision on the petition filed by the respondent as the appellant remained
    unrepresented in the matter. Because it was claimed and determined that the respondent was "a bona fide
    resident of and domiciled in the County of Washoe, State of Nevada, with the intent to make the State of
    Nevada his home for an indefinite period of time," the Nevada Court deduced jurisdiction to entertain and
    hear the divorce petition.
    • A simple sojourn or passing residence, as opposed to a legal domicile, is inadequate. It is forbidden to
    stimulate one’s domicile via fraud. It is incorrect once more that he had "the desire to make the State of
    Nevada his home for a prolonged period of time" for after obtaining the divorce order he left Nevada
    practically soon after.
    • The respondent lived in Utah from 1960 to 1964 before moving to Canada in 1965. It doesn't take much
    convincing to conclude that the respondent travelled to Nevada as a passing tourist, used the local court just
    to establish jurisdiction, and obtained a divorce decision by falsely claiming to be a resident of the state.
    • The Nevada court's ruling lacks authority. In Indian courts, it is not admissible. According to this viewpoint,
    the High Court's reliance on the Le Mesurier concept is no longer relevant.
    • A foreign decision is conclusive as to whatever matter it directly decides, unless "it has not been proclaimed
    by a court of competent jurisdiction," according to Section 13(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. An
    application for maintenance under section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be denied because the
    Nevada court lacked jurisdiction to grant it.
    • Deception regarding the Nevada court's jurisdiction is a crucial factor in determining whether to recognise the
    judgement issued by that court. Therefore, it is pertinent that the respondent successfully asserted the Nevada
    court's jurisdiction by misleading before it about jurisdictional facts.

    You might also like