INDIRA SONTI Vs. SURYANARAYAN MURTY SONTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit for a decree of 1) personal maintenance u/S 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and 2) for damages against the husband (defendant no.1) and the father-in-law (who has now been deleted from the array of defendants).

(2.) THE claim of the plaintiff for maintenance arises from the fact that she married the defendant no.1, who was domiciled, settled and was employed, as an in-house developer with M/s Impact Systems Inc., a software development company, in Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A and was earning USD 5000 per month plus perks and bonuses etc. The plaintiffs case is as follows. She held a Post Graduate Diploma in Management and prior to the marriage was a permanent employee, as a secretary, in Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI), New Delhi and was about to be promoted. She gave up this position in India to marry the defendant in Delaware. On 23.04.1999, the marriage was solemnized before the Clerk of the Peace, who issued a marriage certificate. On 25.04.1999, the wedding was solemnized according to the Hindu traditions, rite and rituals in the Lord Venkateswara Temple, Pittsburgh, U.S.A. On the same day, a demand of Rs. 10 Lakhs in cash along with additional gifts was made to her as a precondition for her to continue staying with the defendant no.1. She tried to persuade the defendant to not force her father to pay the sum asked for, as she was aware that a large sum was spent from his savings for her marriage, but the defendant did not listen to her and demanded divorce for not meeting his demands.

(3.) ON returning to India, she filed a suit for maintenance before the Family Court, Wilmington, Delaware, USA. The Clerk of the Family Court replied back stating that there were some deficiencies with regard to service of notice to the opposing party (the defendant herein). To rectify the said deficiency, she on 28.07.1999, sent a copy of the maintenance petition along with an affidavit to that effect to defendant no.1. Similar letters were also sent to various offices in the country and abroad including the American Embassy, New Delhi, and the Indian Embassy, Wilmington. Replying to the said notice, defendant no. 1 sent a letter to her dated 01.08.1999, asking her to refrain from any future communication with him and that the Family Court at Delaware would decide the course of their divorce. She also received a copy of information addressed to the Consulate General of India, New York from the Embassy of India, Wilmington whereby it was informed that the Consulate General had the jurisdiction as per the address enclosed in the letter and that it was their job to inform the addressee, but she never got any response from the Consulate. On contacting the Clerk of the Family Court, Delaware for further information on her maintenance petition, she was informed that as no decree for separation was filed by the defendant no.1; the court could not proceed further with her maintenance petition.