Harmeeta Si
Citation
of the Case: 2003 IIAD Delhi 14, 102 (2003) DLT 822, I (2003)
DMC 443, 2003 (67) DRJ 58
Date of the judgement: 23.01.2003
Judges Name: Justice Vikramjit Sen
Parties Name: Plaintiff (Wife) Harmeeta Singh and the
Defendant (Husband) Rajat Taneja
Facts of the Case:
·
The Plaintiff (Wife), namely, Harmeeta Singh
and the Defendant (Husband) Rajat Taneja were married in New Delhi, their
marriage was performed and celebrated in style on 24.3.2002 according to Sikh
rites and ceremonies.
·
As both of them are Hindu, so, all the disputes
between their marriage, division of properties will be governed by Hindu Marriage Act .
·
Where a divorce is not prayed for,
maintenance can be granted by the Court in terms of the Hindu Adoption
& Maintenance Act. The spouses
departed for the United States of America on 27.3.2002.
·
The Plaintiff (Wife) has alleged that she
was compelled to leave matrimonial home on 27.8.2002 and that her husband had
initiated proceedings for obtaining a Decree of Divorce in America on
20.9.2002.
·
They lived together as husband and wife,
therefore, for about six months of which three months only was in the United
States of America.
·
They were not in good terms and
thus, their marriage was over. The respondent’s tourist visa was expired in
September of the same year. She flew down to India and lodged a complaint
against the petitioner in Gurgaon under Section 406, 420 and 498 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Issue of the Case:
The major issues of the
case are: -
• From which jurisdiction does the plaintiff contest the court proceedings?
• Whether the Plaintiff (Wife) be applicable for Hindu Maintenance Act?
• Under which Jurisdiction the case shall continue?
List of legal provisions involved
· The
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 120B, 406, 420, 498)
· The Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 13)
· Article
228 of Indian Constitution
· Section 3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Jurisdiction
of the Case
The case was
transferred to the Delhi High Court by the help of article 228 of Indian
Constitution which deals
with the transfer of certain cases to High Court If the High
Court is satisfied that a case pending in a court subordinate to it involves a
substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution the
determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case.
Arguments on behalf of the
appellant
Argues that having financial as well as family support in this country it would be
comparatively easy for the Defendant (Husband) to initiate divorce proceedings
in this country whereas the Plaintiff (Wife) would not be in a position to
challenge the jurisdiction of Matrimonial Courts in New Delhi.
Arguments
on behalf of the respondent
Argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to
any maintenance as she wasn’t compelled to leave home and they mutually decided
to not live together.
Judgement of the case
The Court held that since the wife was not in a position to contest the
proceedings in a foreign Court as she had no means to go there,the court restrain the Defendant (Husband) from continuing with the
proceedings in the United States of America.
Reason behind the Judgement
This brief analysis would lead to the conclusion that even
if the husband, namely, Rajat Taneja were to succeed in obtaining a Decree of
Divorce in America, it would be unlikely to receive recognition in India. It
needs to be emphasised that the marriage was performed in India and was
subsequently merely registered in the United States of America. The parties
lived together for a very short time in the United States of America. The wife
who has lived in India for almost her whole life is presently domiciled in
India. The Defendant (Husband) is of Indian origin and his parents and family
members are Indian citizens and are domiciled in India. It is alleged and is
likely that Rajat holds substantial interests in immovable properties in India.
In the event that the marriage is dissolved by a decree in America, in
consonance with principles of private international law which are embodied in
Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, inter alia, this decree would
have to be confirmed by a Court in this country. Furthermore, if the Defendant
(Husband) were to remarry in the United States of America on the strength of
the Decree of Divorce granted in that country, until this Decree is recognized
in India, he would have committed the criminal offence of bigamy and would have
rendered himself vulnerable to be punished for bigamy. The confusion would be
confounded insofar as the parties are concerned.
On the contrary, however, Courts in India would undoubtedly
have jurisdiction over the disputes between the present spouses since the
marriage was performed in New Delhi. Having financial as well as family support
in this country it would be comparatively easy for the Defendant (Husband) to
initiate divorce proceedings in this country. The Plaintiff (Wife) would not be
in a position to challenge the jurisdiction of Matrimonial Courts in New Delhi.
The forum of convenience, which is a concept well recognized and implemented in
the United States of America, would thus be New Delhi. The Plaintiff (Wife) has
not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Courts in the United States of
America. In the context of their residing together as husband and wife, the
Plaintiff's stay in the United States of America could well be viewed as
transient, temporary and casual. It is quite clear that some of these factors
can apply to the husband also in regard to New Delhi, but the fact remains that
he could quite conveniently prosecute litigation in New Delhi, whereas it is
financially impossible for the Plaintiff (Wife) to do so. Having not received
the Spouse Visa she may not even be in a position to enter the United States of
America.
0 Comments