Bigamy after foreign divorce decree
Nitin
(Querist) 28 September 2009
This query is : Resolved
A files divorce case against B in India. B appears in the case requesting interim maintenance (but not against divorce). However B also files and gets ex-parte divorce in USA after the pparance in the Indian case. A prefers no appeal against the foreign decree and the decree is final. A remarries after the mandatory period in the foreign divorce decree and withdraws his case in India *after* the re-marriage.
Can B accuse A of bigamy if she has acquired divorce on her own? Can she claim to be divorced in USA and married in India? Doesn't the law of estoppel prevent her?
Adinath@Avinash Patil
(Expert) 28 September 2009
Foreign divorce decree is not applicable in India.You have withdrawn your divorce petition, hence she can file bigamy case against you in India,But merit of her case is depends upon evidence.You have good defence of estoppel that she claim divorce in USA.In my opinion she will not succeed.
G. ARAVINTHAN
(Expert) 28 September 2009
Foreign decree has no value in any case of Trial in India.
However, it might be a good evidentary value for the divorce case here.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 28 September 2009
it is a mockery of law that a person herself filed divorce case and obtains a decree accordingly and alleges another person for bigamy. In principal it is true that a foreign decree is not generally recognized in India but in the matter in hand, it shall have full value and an unrebuttable piece of evidence that B has entirely bad intesion liable to be discarded.
Sukhija
(Expert) 28 September 2009
I agree with Adv. Makkad
n.k.sarin
(Expert) 28 September 2009
I also agree with Mr. Makkad.
Manish Singh
(Expert) 28 September 2009
Dear Nitin,
if the divorce decree obtained by you wife was made with kurisdiction, then it shall be cmpletely valid in India too and can be enforced under the Indian Jurisdiction after filing the same, under the CPC, at the civil court having jurisdiction which shall validate it as a decree under Indian laws. also sinc u stated that the wife obatined the decree ex-parte in teh US and u didnt object and further withdrawn ur petition frm indian courts shows that u both had agreed to the jurisdiction of the US Court. so prima facie the decree seems to be completely lawful and as u complied with the provisions of that decree in terms of marriage, you can not be held liable fr bigamy.
Sachin Bhatia
(Expert) 28 September 2009
Agreed with Mr. Raj Kumar
A. A. JOSE
(Expert) 28 September 2009
Interesting facts indeed and an obvious case of misuse of othe provisions of law. As a matter of strategy,you may even move a contempt of court of proceedings against the lady who has obtained ex parte divorce decree from the American court even after appearing before the Indian court which act, in a way, can be termed as comtempt of the Indian court. However, you have otherwise also a strong case for defence.
Manish Singh
(Expert) 28 September 2009
Dear Mr. Nitin and all other members,
I m providing an excerpt from a judgment of the apex court on this same issues which throws much light on the admissibility of foreign decree. plz go through the same. the judgment also says that if teh decree comply with sec 13 CPC then it would be admissible to indian jurisdiction and has elaborated/ interpreted the criteria/ requirements of sec 13.
"Y. Narasimha Rao And Ors vs Y. Venkata Lakshmi And Anr on 9 July, 1991" SC -
"The High Court erred in setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate
only on the ground that the photostat copy of the decree was not admissible in
evidence. In the instant case photostat copies of the judicial record of the
Court of St. Louis is certified for th Circuit Clerk by the Deputy clerk who is
a public officer having the custody of the document within the meaning of
Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act also in the manner required by the
provisions of the said section. Hence the photostat copy per se is not
inadmissible in evidence. It is inadmissible because it has not further been
certified by the representative of our Central Government in the United States
as required by Section 86 of the Act. Therefore the document is not admissible
in evidence for want of the certificate under Section 86 of the Act and not
because it is a photostat copy of the original as held by the High Court. [835B,
E, F-G]"
