SONDUR RAJINI Vs. SONDUR GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Admit. Ms. Nagarathn, learned counsel, waives service for the respondent. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, taken up for final hearing.

(2.) This appeal, by the wife, is directed against the judgment and order dated 1-1-2005 rendered by the Family Court in Interim Application No. 235 of 2004 filed in Petition No. A-531 of 2004, allowing the said application filed by the respondent-husband under section 1 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, "h. M. Act"). By that application, the respondent had prayed for dismissal of the petition filed by the appellant as not maintainable on the ground that the parties are citizens of Sweden and not domiciled in India. The appellant's petition was filed inter-alia seeking a decree of judicial separation under section 10 of H. M. Act, for custody of minor children and for maintenance.

(3.) The factual matrix, sans unnecessary details, is as follows : The appellant and the respondent tied the nuptial knot on 25-6-1989 under the Hindu vedic Rites at Bangalore. When they got married the respondent was working in sweden with B. C. F. I. Philips. After marriage, the respondent left for Sweden in the first week of July, 1989 followed by the appellant in November, 1989. The couple was blessed with their first child Natasha on 19-9-1993. Unfortunately, natasha is a down-syndrone child. In December, 1993 they purchased their own house in Stockholm. The parties applied for Swedish citizenship in 1995-1996 which was granted to them in 1997. In June, 1997 the appellant and the respondent moved to Mumbai as, according to the appellant, the employer of the respondent, viz. A. T. Kearney was setting up his business in India. Between june, 1997 and mid 1999 the respondent lived with the appellant and Natasha in india. In mid 1999, A. T. Kearney offered him a job in Sydney which he accepted and accordingly moved to Sydney, Australia. The appellant, respondent and Natasha went to Sydney on sponsorship visa 457 which allowed them to stay and work in Australia for a period of four years. While they were in Australia the respondent disposed of their house in Sweden in 2000. The couple was once again blessed with their second child Smyan on 9-2-2001 when they were at sydney. The respondent lost his job on 7-7-2001 and since he no longer had sponsor he had to leave Australia in the second week of January, 2002. They shifted to Stockholm, Sweden and lived there in a leased house till October, 2002 during which period he had no job. On 2-10-2002 the respondent got another job at Sydney, Australia with Infosis Technology Ltd. Again the respondent got temporary visa 457. He was then sponsored by Infosis. He went to Sydney on 18-12-2002. In the meanwhile, on 14-12-2002, the appellant left for Mumbai with the children. On 31-1-2003 the appellant along with the children left for australia. After a brief stay in Australia, the appellant came back to India with both the children on 17-12-2003 on a tourist visa. The respondent stayed back in sydney. In January, 2004 for the first time, according to the respondent, the appellant informed him that she did not want to return to Sydney at all. It appears that thereafter the respondent came back to India and tried to persuade the appellant to accompany him back to Sydney. Since the appellant was determined not to go back to Sydney, she filed the petition seeking a decree of judicial separation under section 10 of H. M. Act and also prayed for permanent custody of the minor children as also for maintenance.