S TEJA SINGH Vs. SATYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER a Hindu Marriage solemnised within this country can be validly annulled by a decree of divorce granted by a foreign court is the question that falls for determination in this revision petition.

(2.) THE proceedings arise out of a petition under Section 488, Criminal P. C. , moved by the respondent-wife Satya on the 22nd of April, 1965, claiming maintenance on behalf of herself and her two minor children against her husband Teja Singh. It was averred therein that the marriage between the parties took place according to Sikh rites on the 1st of July, 1955, in Basti Guzan at Jullundur. Two children were born of the wedlock in the year 1956 and 1958. Towards the end of the year 1958, the petitioner-husband planned to go to U. S. A. to secure a Doctorate in Forestry and accordingly left for the United States on the 23rd January, 1959. He is said to have joined the University in the State of New York and spent more than five years for obtaining higher education there and subsequently had secured employment in the States and was said to be receiving a salary of about Rs. 2,500/-per mensem. During this long period it was alleged that he had wholly refused and neglected to maintain the respondent-wife and her two children.

(3.) THE petitioner in his reply whilst controverting the allegations made in the petition primarily pleaded that prior to the institution of the petition, the respondent had moved and secured a decree of divorce on the 30th of December, 1964, against the petitioner in accordance with law from the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in the United States and thus the bond of marriage stood dissolved and the petitioner was not liable to pay any maintenance to the respondent-wife. Objections regarding the jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court at Jullundur to take cognisance of the matter were also taken and agitated but as these have not been pressed in this court. I deem it unnecessary to refer to them. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jullundur by her order dated the 17th of December, 1966, held that the court had territorial jurisdiction; the annulment of marriage can only be done under the Hindu Marriage Act, that the decree granted by the Court of the State of Nevada contravened Section 19 and 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and the respondent-wife not being a party to the divorce proceedings, the decree granted by the Court in the United States was not binding between the husband and the wife. Accordingly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/-for the respondent-wife and Rs. 100/-for each of the minor children was directed. A revision petition against the said order was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur, who held that as the marriage between the parties had been performed in India, according to Hindu rites, the same could be annulled only according to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore the decree of divorce of the foreign Court was not of a binding nature between the parties.