LAKSHMI PRIYA SESHAN Vs. SHANKAR GUHADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the judgment of the Family Court, Trivandrum dismissing O.P. (HMA) No. 394/10 filed by the appellant. Appellant and the respondent were married on 01/02/2008 at Trivandrum. In connection with their employment, they are residing in the United States of America. Since inception, there was incompatibility between the couple. Finally, they decided to part ways and accordingly, the respondent filed FL 09-148 before the Yolo Superior Court Accordingly, judgment was passed by that Court on 26/10/2009, dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent. Thereafter, the appellant filed OP (HMA) 394/10 before the Family Court, Trivandrum seeking a declaration that the aforesaid judgment of the Yolo Superior Court (Ext. A3) is valid. That OP was dismissed by the Family Court by Judgment dated 21/04/2012 mainly on the ground that the conditions specified in Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not satisfied. It is challenging that judgment the appellant has filed this appeal.

(2.) We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) A reading of Ext. A3 judgment of the Yolo Superior Court shows that it was passed ex-parte and without discussing evidence, if any, that is adduced before that Court The question to be considered is whether such a judgment satisfies the requirement of Section 13 C.P.C. Section 13 C.P.C. provides the circumstances when a foreign judgment is not conclusive and one of the circumstances provided in clause (b) is where the judgment has not been given on the merits of the case. Clause (b) of Section 13 was interpreted by the Apex Court in International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U.K.) Ltd., 2001 AIR(SC) 2134where, in paragraphs 27 and 28, it was held thus: