 different changes which we have brought off late. One is that we have started certain sessions at 9 p.m. because life has come back to normalcy we can say, but as they say that you have to still take the precautions. COVID though undoubtedly has come down, but as they say prevention is better than cure. And second is that we have also started taking sessions which are in different languages that is Hindi and we also started one session in Punjabi. But today we are back with the English session and as the session itself speaks, the effect of foreign judgments in the matrimonial cases under section 13 of the Court of Civil Procedure. And amongst us we have Parvati Menon and Advocate from Kerala High Court. And we have already seen that the way in a subtle manner she explains the issues and aspects. And this aspect as to effect of the foreign judgments is an issue which normally keeps up, propping for the purposes of professional also and at least to ignite the, as they say, the legal minds. And legal minds when they say we have a different issue is always a fascinating subject as such. Since we are starting late, time I will just ask Advocate Parvati Menon to take things in her usual manner which is simple and self-explanatory. She would also be sharing the notes on the, I see a screen sharing, thank you friends. Stay connected and stay blessed. Those who have missed the previous sessions, they can always subscribe to the Beyond Law CLC YouTube channel. Over to you ma'am. Good evening all. Namaste. And my beloved senior, Mr. Ramachandran, he has joined this evening. Actually, he's a retired judicial officer. I'm so happy, sir, that you have also joined. And namaste and good evening to everyone. This is, I suppose it's a very interesting topic because when I came to know that this player has had reached many of my colleagues, I was told by many people that this is an area which created a lot of confusions among a lot of litigants as well as lawyers. But I think if you really look into it and if you really go through the decisions also, it's actually very clear. Only thing is how you are able to apply the specific law to the circumstances or to your case law, to your particular case, that alone is something which we will have to develop. Otherwise, I think the law is absolutely clear and it's a settled position as well. So if I may be permitted to share the screen. Okay, now the effective foreign judgment in matrimonial cases under section 13 CPC. That is the topic of the day. So I'm not able to screen share. Yes. Now, what does section 13 CPC say? Like if you go to the definition of or rather the contents of section 13 CPC, I think it's better that if I give you an idea about section 13 CPC in a more simple manner. Now, if you go to the contents of it, it says when foreign judgment not conclusive, it's more of a negative definition or a negative manner in which this provision has been highlighted. Foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter, thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title except. So let us read it this way. Where it has not been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction. So one aspect is if a foreign judgment has to be accepted in India, it has to be pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction. Secondly, it has to be given on the merits of the case. Thirdly, it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of, it should be on a correct view of international law, but more when it comes to the usage in India, a refusal to recognize the law of India of India in cases in which such law is applicable. If the foreign judgment, which we intend to be accepted in India, refuses to recognize the law of India where in cases where such law is applicable, then the judgment cannot be accepted in India. I can explain this to you by means of a case. Of course, I'll come to that. Then you have where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice. That is a part of civilized litigation as you all know that principles of natural justice have to be followed when it comes to any kind of civilized litigation. Then if you have obtained a judgment by fraud and where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law enforced in India. So these are the conditions on which a foreign judgment can be treated whether it should be considered to be conclusive or not. So a foreign judgment can be considered to be conclusive and acceptable in India only if one, it has been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction. It has been pronounced on the merits of the case. It has been pronounced without refusing to recognize the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable. It has to be pronounced after following all the principles of natural justice. It should not have been obtained by fraud and it should not have caused any kind of breach of any law enforced in India. So these are the basic concepts on which the section 13 CPC lies. Now I will straight away take you to the Magna Carta of the conclusiveness of foreign matrimonial judgments. That is why Narasimha Rao and others versus why Venkatalakshmi and another. It's a very detailed judgment. 1991 police Supreme Court cases 451, which still is considered to be a Magna Carta in this issue regarding this matter because it covers all the different sections under section 13, absolutely separately. So it will be more easier for us to understand. It gives an explanation to each sub clause of section 13 so that it becomes more easier to comprehend. So I'll take you to this particular judgment. The honorable Supreme Court in the above case has elaborately discussed the applicability of section 13 of the Code of Service Procedure as regards foreign judgments on matrimonial disputes, particularly in light of the Hague Convention under the condition of divorce and legal separation. This judgment continues to be the Magna Carta on the conclusiveness of the foreign matrimonial judgments in India under section 13 CPC. See section 13 CPC covers the acceptance of foreign judgment regarding all issues. But today, this class, we focus only on the matrimonial concepts. Then section 13 A interpretation. Section 13 A interpretation, as I told you from the section, when I read out the section itself of the CPC, this interpretation when it comes to the judgment, it reads, clause A of section 13 states that a foreign judgment shall not be recognized if it has not been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction. The court continues, we are of the view that this clause should be interpreted to mean that only that court will be a court of competent jurisdiction which the act or the law under which the parties are married recognizes as a court of competent jurisdiction to entertain the matrimonial dispute. Now let's get back, like we all know in India we have personal laws that govern marriages and succession. So we have the Hindu marriage act, we have the divorce act, Christian marriage act, divorce act and then we have the Shariat law. And also we have, of course, now the resolution of Muslim marriage act is there as early as 1939. Then subsequently we have also have now the act that holds that triple talak is bad in law. And so which court, which is the competent, which is the court of competent jurisdiction has to be decided on the basis of which, where which court should be recognized as a court of competent jurisdiction under the law under which the parties have married. For example, as far as Hindu marriage is concerned we know the court, there are different subsections which says you can file a court, we can file a case for divorce before any court, before the family court, either where the marriage was solemnized or where the parties lived together last as husband and wife or where the petitioner resides at the time of filing of the petition or where the respondent resides. So these are all courts of competent jurisdiction which has been recognized by the law prevalent in India in case of divorce also, in case of divorce under a divorce act for the Christians also this applies. So when it comes to section 13a, you have to interpret it in such a manner that the foreign judgment shall be recognized only if a court of competent jurisdiction has pronounced it. Any other court should be held to be a court without jurisdiction unless, this is very important, unless both parties voluntarily and unconditionally subject themselves to the jurisdiction of that court. For example, the marriage took place in India and then the parties are residing in Australia. They both of them decide to go or rather approach the court of law. And before the court of law, both parties voluntarily subject themselves to the jurisdiction of that of the Australian court or unconditionally subject themselves to the jurisdiction of that court. Unless and until they voluntarily or unconditionally subject themselves to the jurisdiction of that court, then the judgment passed by that court cannot be accepted in India because ordinarily it is the court, the courts in India, which will have the jurisdiction over to decide the whatever aspect that relates to marriage as far as those two parties are concerned. But if they choose and if they voluntarily and without any condition, subject themselves to the jurisdiction of Australian courts, then of course that judgment can be considered before the court of law here or rather that can be accepted here. Then comes how the interpretation of section 13B is considered in that particular judgment. That was the 1991 judgment. Clause B of section 13 states that if a foreign judgment has not been given on the merits of the case, the courts in this country will not recognize that judgment. Like an ex-party judgment, the other party was not present and the court passes a judgment behind his back or rather in this absence that will not be accepted by the court here. This clause should be interpreted to me one that the decision of the foreign court should be in a ground available under law under which the parties are married. This is very, very important. Because as you all know, in India, the concept of marriage is absolutely different when compared to other foreign countries. So there are an array of grounds on which an Indian can get or for that matter a Hindu or a Christian or a Muslim or a Sikh or a Farsi can get a divorce. There are separate, separate laws. Then of course that we have a special marriage act as well. But normally the grounds for divorce almost are similar. They range from cruelty, which amounts to mental cruelty, physical cruelty. Then it ranges to adultery. Then it comes to a cruelty coupled with adultery. Then it comes to conversion of a person in a case where the spouse has been found to be mentally deranged in such a position that it has been dangerous to the life of the other spouse who was expected to live with the spouse who's mentally deranged. So these are the several conditions on which the Hindu marriage act, the divorce act and the dissolution of Muslim marriage act, all these statutes spin itself. But when it comes to Western countries or when it comes to foreign countries, most of these grounds are not used or rather they are not totally unheard of in most of the other countries. So what happens is what we find in most of the Western countries, at least Western countries we find an irretrievable breakdown of marriage is considered to be a proper condition or a good condition or a normal regular condition for getting divorce of the marriage. Then both the parties come to the court and they admit that there has been an irretrievable breakdown of marriage between them. It is accepted by the courts, many of the foreign courts. So what happens is if the parties, if Indian parties, both parties, both Indians, let's take an example, X and Y, they get married in India. They get settled in Australia. And then they voluntarily subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the Australian court. But the ground on which their marriage is dissolved is irretrievable breakdown of marriage. But that cannot be accepted in India because as per the Indian laws, irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for getting divorce. Now again, you all might be confused because you must have heard that an array of decisions which I'll take you to by which the Supreme Court has been granting divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. But one thing what we should see is all those cases, the Supreme Court has given divorce or granted divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which is the inherent power of the Supreme Court. Unless and until a judgment is passed under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, it does not become the law of the land. Whatever that becomes the law of the land is only under Article 141 of the Constitution. For that matter, any judgment on marriage becomes a law of the land under Article 141. But a judgment or rather an order passed by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution is invoking inherent powers of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court alone has the power to grant divorces on grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage so it does not become the law of the land. Though there has been a lot of attempts by law commissions I think that even the latest 210th law commission. Subsequently also what I understand is there has been an array of decisions which where law commissions as well as high courts and Supreme Court has been attempting to recommend to the legislators to bring in this that is the irretrievable breakdown theory as one of the grounds for a valid divorce. Nothing has been happening so far. It still continues that we do not have this as a ground for a valid divorce. Now comes clause B. And the decision should be a result of the contest between the parties. So it should not be a case, it should not be a consent decree. So these are all conditions under which which has to be complied with if a foreign decree has to be accepted in India. So please seek clause B. The decision should be a result of the contest between the parties. The latter requirement is fulfilled only when the respondent is duly served and voluntarily and unconditionally subject himself to the jurisdiction of the court and contest the claim or agrees to the passing of the decree with or without appearance. A mere filing of the reply to the claim under protest and without submitting to the jurisdiction of the court or an appearance in the court, either in person or through a representative for objecting to the jurisdiction of the court should not be considered as a decision on the merits of the case. Let me take, I'll give you an illustration, that's better. Now X and Y married in India. They subject themselves unconditionally subject themselves to the jurisdiction of Australian courts. The husband, he files a reply to the claim made by the wife and says, it is under protest. I protest, I do not submit myself voluntarily to the jurisdiction of the court and I object to the jurisdiction of the court. If that be so, just because he has appeared in the court through either himself or through a representative does not give him, does not comply or rather does not, it does not, cannot be considered as having complied with the second link of class B of section 30. And this decision should be a result of the contest between the parties. Just because he appeared through a lawyer and he filed a reply for what you call, it's a claim under protest or if he appears and says that he does not submit, it does not submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court. He protest or he says that he's objecting to the jurisdiction of the court, then it cannot be considered as a decision as a result of that requirement is fulfilled only when the response is duly served and voluntarily and unconditionally submits themselves. Otherwise, if it's a case of pure contest, things are different. Then comes section 13 C interpretation. So section 13 C has two limbs again. The first part deals with private international law which does not directly get itself involved in the matrimonial issues in India. So I have, so I have narrowed down this point just to a second part of class C of section 13 which states that where the judgment is founded on a refusal to recognize the law of this country in cases in which laws applicable, the judgment will not be recognized by the courts in this country. It's more or less a kind of repetition which says that unless the law of the land, the law of India, unless you get a divorce on a ground which has been accepted by laws in India, the foreign judgment may not be accepted or applicable in India. The matters which take place in this country can only be under either the customary or the statutory law imposed in this country. And it's the only law that can be applicable to the matrimonial disputes is the one under which the parties are married and no other law. When therefore a foreign judgment is founded on a jurisdiction or on a ground not recognized by such law, it is a judgment which is in defiance of the law. Hence it is not conclusive of the matters adjudicated there and therefore unenforceable in this country. That is as I told you earlier as I gave you that example of on some ground which is not accepted by personal laws of India if a foreign country or a foreign court gives a judgment for divorce on some ground which is not accepted by the laws of India, then that judgment is not applicable or it cannot be accepted in India. So that's a nutshell of the whole thing. Then comes section 13B interpretation. That of course as I told you earlier it's a very common thing, it's a very wide aspect which is used in all forms of litigation as I told you it's a civilized system of justice that is the principles of natural justice have to be followed. Plus B of section 13 which makes a foreign judgment unenforceable on the ground that the proceedings in which it is obtained are opposed to natural justice states no more than an elementary principle on which any civilized system of justice requests. However in matters concerning the family law such as the matrimonial disputes this principle has to be extended to mean something more than mere compliance with the technical rules procedure. If the rule of Audi ultrampartum has any meaning with reference to proceedings in a foreign court for the purposes of this rule it should not be deemed sufficient that the respondent has been duly served with the process of the court. It is necessary to ascertain whether the respondent was in a position to present or represent himself or herself and contest effectively the said proceedings. That is the difference. Here once the notice is served on the opposite side it is not sufficient method of complying with the principles of natural justice. But in foreign country if a foreign judgment has to be accepted in India plus D of section 13 has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in such a manner that it is necessary to ascertain whether the respondent was in a position to present or represent himself or herself and contest effectively the said proceedings abroad. If a foreign judgment to be accepted in India as far as that case is concerned you have to make sure that the respondent was served with a notice and that he was in a position to present or represent himself or herself and contest effectively the said proceedings. This requirement should apply equally to the effluent proceedings if and when they are filed by either party. If the foreign court has not ascertained requiring the petitioner to make all necessary provisions for the respondent to defend including the cost of travel, residence and litigation where necessary should be held when the proceedings are in breach of principles of natural justice. See in foreign countries it goes to a very large extent where it is the petitioner to have to go to see that the respondent is brought to the court with all royalty is able to defend by giving him the cost of travel, residence and litigation it is made sure that the respondent has been brought to the court he has been given sufficient chance to litigate against the petitioner and only then it will be considered that the principles of natural justice have been complied and unless and until the principles of natural justice have been complied that particular foreign judgment will not be conclusive and will not be accepted in India. Then the next interpretation is section 13 P the provision of clause P of section 13 which requires that the courts in this country will not recognize a foreign judgment if it has been obtained by fraud is self-evident. See this fraud is not just section 17 of the Indian contract act defines fraud so whatever that comes under the definition of section 17 of the Indian contract act alone is not fraud as far as the interpretation of section 13 by the Supreme Court is concerned because however in view of the decision of this court it is Satya versus Teja Singh reported in Maya 1975 Supreme Court 105 it must be understood that the fraud need not be only in relation to the merits of the matter but may also be in relation to jurisdictional facts because as we all know jurisdiction is a very important aspect when it comes to matrimonial disputes it can be either jurisdiction by by domicile or it can be a case of jurisdiction by celebration of marriage solemnization of marriage can be in a place that place can get the jurisdiction of the courts or it can be a case where the party is domicile now in this particular case what happened was Satya versus Teja Singh 1975 Supreme Court what happened was this case this particular epilogue this particular person Teja Singh the husband actually the husband who was the respondent before this court before Supreme Court what happened was he invoked the jurisdiction of a particular court a particular foreign court by playing fraud on the court by stating that he is a domicile of that particular place and that domicile was a transit domicile actually he belonged to India so working totally in a different country and what he did was a transit domicile was chosen by him a transit country was chosen by him and he gave the domicile of that country and obtained fraud on that court and obtained a foreign judgment because only when the wife brought this to the court notice it was not on the merits of the case that is the difference it was not on the merits of the case it was even on playing fraud on the jurisdiction of the court so matter as much when it comes to acceptance of a foreign judgment in India on the ground of fraud that is section 13 E of the interpretation of section 13 E of CPC so the conclusion is from the first discussion the following rule can be deduced for a nice foreign matrimonial judgment in this country the jurisdiction assumed by the foreign court as well as grounds on which the relief is granted in accordance with the matrimonial law under which the parties are married so it should be on some ground which has been given by the Hindu which has been provided by the Hindu marriage act or it should be on some ground which has been provided by the divorce act or the solution of the Muslim marriage act or the sharia law so it should be on the basis of some law that has been accepted or provided by the courts of by the law of India the exceptions to this rule may be as follows where the matrimonial action is filed in the forum where the respondent is domiciled or habitually and permanently recites and the relief is granted on a ground available in the matrimonial law under which the parties are married again two fold the matrimon if a matrimonial action is filed in the forum where the respondent is domiciled or habitually permanently recites for example let's take a case where x and y are married in India now they are living presently in Australia and x wants to get a divorce from y y is continuously or habitually and permanently reciting in Australia so x can file a lawsuit for divorce against y and relief is granted on a ground and it's not or that is the difference and a relief is granted on a ground available in the matrimonial law under which the parties are married for example two Hindus so the statute that governs their marriage is the Hindu marriage act of 1955 and the grounds available for divorce under the Hindu marriage act are provided under section 13 of that act under section 13 of the Hindu marriage act now unless and until they contest the claim or rather a relief is granted to this person to x on a ground available in the matrimonial law under which the parties are married under some of the grounds any of the grounds mentioned under section 13 that that judgment cannot be accepted I hope I am clear then the second one where the respondent voluntarily and effectively submits to the jurisdiction of the forum as discussed above and contests the claim which is based on a ground available under the matrimonial law under which the parties are married either if the respondent is habitually and permanently residing in a foreign country and a relief is granted on a ground available in the matrimonial law that is under which the parties are married or where the respondent voluntarily and effectively submits himself to a particular jurisdiction and contest the claim which is based on a ground available under the matrimonial law so tomorrow X is able to file a case against Y stating that she needs or she needs a divorce on the basis of cruelty cruelty is a ground that is available in India unless and until he or she is able to prove or rather contest a case on any of the grounds that is available in the law of India that foreign judgment will not be accepted then the third one where the respondent consents to the grant of the relief although the doors from the forum is not in accordance with the provisions of the matrimonial law of the parties what if tomorrow Y says okay let there be a judgment against me let divorce be granted so that all these principles will not be looked into it will be a consent decree if that we show that consent decree can be accepted in India then there will be a few grounds on which or rather this is the conclusion based on which clause section 13 clauses A to E have been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the 1991 case which I told you it's a Narasimha Rao versus sorry that's a case that's a case that is a Narasimha Rao versus Venkata I'm not able to recollect that name I showed you in the slides earlier I think Narasimha Rao and others versus Venkata Lakshmi and another that's a 1991 this is the case which has discussed all the different clauses under section 13 in such a manner that the ultimate conclusion that we have now or rather we discussed now has been reached so this gives an idea as to whether how far the foreign judgments can be accepted in natural cases in India so this is basically a Magna Katna as far as that this principle is concerned then as I told you it will break down of marriage these are all several decisions anybody who wants to write down the notes can write down these notes why I stated this particular ground of divorce why I highlighted this particular ground for divorce is because most of the countries abroad they tend to grant divorce on this particular ground and this is one ground as I the cost of reputation let me tell you this is one ground which has not been accepted by the law by in India by any laws none of the personal laws accept the legal breakdown of marriage as one ground for a contesting divorce except of course as I told you earlier by the supreme court under article 142 they have invoked their inherent jurisdiction and granted divorce in cases where there has been an irreversible breakdown and that too since they are not on merits that does not come under the purview of article 141 of the constitution so that does not become the law of the law these are the some of the decisions again the array of decisions based on the ground of irreversible breakdown theory anybody who wants to write down the notes can write down that is why I am waiting for it then when it comes to matrimonial cases in foreign case in foreign judgments I thought I should bring to your notice two aspects mainly these are all ancillary issues which normally would come to your attention on which it should come across which you would come across when you handle matrimonial disputes and when foreign judgments whether when acceptance of foreign judgments or rather when the parties are living abroad and they are also in a free in conducting litigations abroad as that so this is a situation which most of the lawyers would come across that is the anti-soat indentions now what are anti-soat indentions anti-soat indentions are instituted to prevent the opposite party from instituting or continuing with the proceedings in another court in domestic or foreign country for example if in Kerala a person initiates proceedings and the proceedings are being taking place in Kerala at the same time the opposite party wants to conduct a case in UK US or Australia for that matter if that be so you can approach the court in Kerala asking for a relief that you can seek for an anti-soat indentions asking them not to proceed with the litigation abroad there is nothing wrong in granting injunctions that effect the principle that lies in granting injunctions in such cases is exactly the very same principle under which section 41 of the specific relief act is injunctions are granted it is the very same manner in which anti-soat indentions are also granted in matrimonial matters the parties may be entitled to invoke different jurisdictions jurisdiction based on domicile or jurisdiction based on solemnization of marriage so what if a party whose marriage have taken place in Punjab or Delhi for that matter they move the family court where the marriage has been solemnized one of them moves the court where the marriage has been solemnized the other person simultaneously intends to move litigation for a matrimonial relief in a court abroad or for that matter in a court in any part of the country whether it is in the country or abroad anti-soat indentions can be granted by the court now important decisions regarding anti-soat indentions you may note it down Mathavendra Bhatnagar v. Bhavnalal 2021 2 SCC 775 Vivek Rai Gupta v. Niyati Gupta 2018 17 SCC 21 Dinesh Singh Thankur v. Sonal Thakur AR 2018 Supreme Court 1994 and the last and the last one I hope I am audible yeah perfect the last one the last judgment which I mentioned is George Koshy v. Sara Koshy it is a case that has been pronounced by our parent high court that is the Kerala High Court in which the court courts have given very good description totally good it has formed a good precedent where anti-soat indentions can be granted if I may take you to the specific discussions of this particular judgment it says it describes anti-soat indentions it describes the anti-soat indentions after quoting certain important law books as well and says when between the same parties litigating on the same subject matter based on the same course of action only one court has jurisdiction it is said to have exclusive jurisdiction however if more courts than one have jurisdiction over the same matter they are called courts of concurrent jurisdiction in such circumstances the criteria to determine which is the more appropriate jurisdiction for the jurisdiction of the matter to restrain the other party not to proceed with the same litigation in the other non-preferred jurisdiction in such process courts in different jurisdictions cannot restrain each other however the same parties appearing before both the courts in different jurisdictions can seek an injunction to restrain the other party from proceeding in the other non-preferential jurisdiction with the same matter such suits seeking restraint of proceedings in one jurisdiction are called anti-soat indentions this is what I explained now that is with an illustration somebody has moved somebody has chosen to move a divorce proceedings in Kerala on the ground that the marriage was solemnised in Kerala but the opposite party chooses to move a matrimonial litigation in a foreign court on the ground that the parties have been domiciled there the party in Kerala the party who has moved the Kerala court can essentially move a petition for an anti-soat injunction restraining the opposite party from litigating in the foreign court simultaneously so that is how anti-soat injunctions function or rather place its role another important area which I thought I should bring to your notices section 44 ACPC when it comes to acceptance of foreign judgment the difference is section 44 ACPC deals with execution of decrees passed by courts in reciprocating territory section 13 is acceptance of the judgment by itself whereas section 44 ACPC deals only with execution of decrees but one aspect which has to be which we should understand this or rather we should comprehend this section 44 ACPC is a secondary procedure unless and until the filtration under section 13 CPC whether a particular judgment can be accepted in India or not whether the test of filtration under section 13 CPC is over unless and until that part of it is cleared there is no question of section 44 AB invoked at all so section 44 ACPC is totally on the execution of decrees and that too it is a very limited role because execution of decrees passed by courts in reciprocating territory reciprocating territory are those countries which have been notified which has been notified in the Indian case unless and until you form one of these countries there is no question if a judgment is passed in these countries you can get them executed in India that is all that section 44 assays acceptability of a foreign judgment and execution of a foreign judgment is totally different execution of foreign judgment is a secondary process which has to comply or rather pass the test of filtration under section 13 CPC I hope I have made myself very clear now section 44A deals with only a very limited purpose where the execution of a foreign decree of reciprocating countries in India which have been notified in the Indian case alone can be used like for example a judgment in the United Kingdom or a judgment in UAE one can file an execution petition directly before the district court here because it is a reciprocating country these are the 11 countries which come under the reciprocating countries of India which have been notified in the Indian case I think UAE came in very late and it has been included as a reciprocating country of India now before winding up I think I have to bring to you notice a very important judgment that has been passed by a parent court a parent high court Kerala High Court on 15th December 2021 which in which there has been a discussion regarding foreign court judgments acceptance of foreign court judgments under section 13 the reason why I was at the outset itself I was happy that a senior lawyer retired judicial officer presiding officer had joined our meeting was that particular senior lawyer had conducted this case so it was at his instance that I am bringing this case to your notice because he is the one who told me that there is a very important decision that has been it has not been reported so far I can give you the number of that case that is the 1148 matrimony appeal 1148 of 2015 it is available in our Kerala high court website it is Sindhu Prabhagaran versus Biji Balakrishnan and another it is a division bench judgment so that was the case where the parties got married in one of the districts in Kerala parties got married in Kerala and both of them were living in U.S they approached the Californian court they obtained a degree of divorce and after that I think certain other aspects had also been decided by the courts there after that the wife comes here she invokes the one of the local district court here where the marriage was solemnized she abides by principles of jurisdiction and then she invokes the jurisdiction of the Kerala court and seeks for certain reliefs like pertaining to property and gold and other things like money involved and all that stuff she invokes the Kerala court for that purpose so what happened was the family court in Kerala they dismissed that petition saying that these are all aspects that you ought to have raised or rather ought to have come under the Californian judgment because that is a judgment which has been to which both the parties have subjected themselves voluntarily so that becomes accepted in India so if had all these aspects been treated or rather been considered by the courts there it should have been done there there is no reason why you should have come to the court in Kerala right now for invoking these or rather for claiming these reliefs but the Kerala high court what the Kerala high court the stand taken by the Kerala high court is not certain aspects for example if the property the matter is relating to a property concern and the property lies in Kerala there is no reason why that litigation relating to that property should be agitated in the US in the foreign country I can give you I shall take you to 11 portions of the judgment it says the parties are not disputing exhibit B2 judgment exhibit B2 judgment is the foreign judgment by the Californian court by which they obtained divorce as it is conclusive with respect to the matters directly adjudicated upon between there but section 13a clearly says that a foreign judgment is conclusive except when it has not been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction regarding the matters thereby directly adjudicated upon between the parties in other words the foreign court should have competent jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matters thereby adjudicated upon between the parties so as to treat that foreign judgment conclusive but here the question is whether dispute involved in the above OP was covered by the foreign judgment the dispute involved in the present case was regarding the property that was present that was situated in Kerala if so the courts held that the courts in US essentially they do not have the jurisdiction to decide on a matter regarding a property that is situated in Kerala so that means so the high court held rightly the family court should have entertained this petition PW1 father of the appellant deposed that the settlement agreement attached to exhibit B2 B2 is the foreign judgment was with respect to the assets and liabilities of the parties in USA the settlement agreement that have been attached to the foreign judgment related to the properties as well as the liabilities of the parties in USA it did not relate to the liabilities or assets or the money involved in Kerala so essentially regarding those aspects the foreign judgment cannot the foreign judgment cannot be conclusive about it so essentially those are areas which have to be agitated before the court which has jurisdiction regarding that matter so when it comes to property the way as we all know the property can as the CPC itself says immovable property where the property lies the court has jurisdiction if that be so you cannot say that the foreign judgment is conclusive regarding the decision of the property that is lying in Kerala so that is how the judgment goes that's a very important judgment it is available on our website also which will give a conclusive idea as to how section 13 CPC has to be applied when it comes to foreign judgment so this is the nutshell of actually how section 13 works so section for a foreign judgment yes the decision I think somebody has sent a message on the chat box the party's name is Sindhu Prabhagaran versus Viji Balakrishnan and another Sindhu Prabhagaran versus Viji Balakrishnan and another the case number is matrimonial appeal number 1148 of 2015 it was decided on 15th December 2021 so therefore it's in a nutshell if I should conclude how section 13 should function section 13 should function only if the foreign judgment has been passed by a court of competent jurisdiction if on the merits of the case on the basis of any law on the basis of any law that has been accepted and approved by the provisions of the Indian law the principles of natural justice have to be followed it should not have been obtained by court or it should not violate any kind of law that is prevalent in India so all these conditions have to be looked into if a foreign judgment has to be accepted in India and again as I told you section 44a of CPC is different from section 13 section 44a deals only with enforceability of and that is not enforceability, execution of the judgments of the reciprocating territories that is enforceability or acceptance of foreign judgments is dealt at the section 13 CPC anything in particular if you have to ask though it's a very short topic and there are only very few judgments regarding all this of course it's a second position also and I think the section itself is self-explanatory on its own but based on facts you can always differentiate your judgment or that's how we have to go about it any queries you have you can post it to me I'm just reading it this is any timeline with which one needs to file anything in India once the divorce has been given in any country there is no confirmation of foreign judgment if a divorce has been granted by a foreign court if it satisfies all the conditions on the section 13 of the CPC you don't have to redo the whole process or redo the whole exercise here so there is no question of limitation in such a case if it is not acceptable if you feel that it's not acceptable then of course you will have to move the quotes here because if it has been given on breakdown of marriage in the foreign country and then you come here and you want to there might not be an acceptance of that particular judgment unless of course both the parties have subjected themselves to the jurisdiction so you can always move the Indian quotes on any of the grounds available under the provisions of law here for that there is no question of limitation except that you will have to give an explanation if there is unreasonable delay after obtaining a foreign judgment and if you approach the court you will have to give an explanation why this is why you have approached the quotes here and why the delay is there is no question of limitation except it says one of the spouse is in US or who is in the other country invested along with their spouse in India and family in India in this scenario what's the process if property separation is involved in India and in the case of immigration that is what the last judgment actually deals with so property separation means if the property as well as India is concerned we are bound by CPC and CPC clearly states that any litigation as far as the regarding title or regarding position or anything regarding the immobile property you will have to agitate before the court where the property lies so there is no point in getting a judgment from US regarding a property in Kerala or regarding a property in Punjab regarding a property in Delhi self-explanatory you will have to move the concerned court in India itself but as stated in the earlier judgment if the parties have entered into a rather they have subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of a court abroad and they have been able to enter into an agreement regarding the properties there or regarding whatever liabilities or assets or whatever in the foreign country of course then that foreign judgment becomes binding but otherwise if you want to decide on something that is in India you will have to oppose the courts here inside how to deal with cases where child abuse is involved and suppose gets divorced outside India is there way that the child can be protected from the abuser legally given abuses is in India and both the child and other parent is in other country child abuse child abuse is a totally different issue child abuse as such is not a ground for divorce of course it comes under cruelty and comes in the major criminal offense in India as you all know FOXO cases are there but I did not understand like how I mean if you could please repeat the question and make it clear like yeah how to deal with the cases where child abuse is involved and spouse gets divorced outside India is there a way that child abuse can be protected from the abuser legally given abuser is in India and both child and other parents is in other country abuse we may not connote with the matrimonial aspect okay now if it is the third person if matrimonial disputes what we come to know what rather we have been seeing also like there are a lot of issues where the parents where the spouses find fault with or rather you know make unnecessary allegations of child abuse against each other so I was under the impression it had something to do with the matrimonial dispute as such but if you want to save the child and if you want to if you are going abroad and if the abuser or the perpetrator is in India you will have to move the Indian courts for that whatever if the perpetrator is in and if the incident has taken place in India also you can you will have to move the Indian courts for it this is one spouse is in US cruelty filed in US and got divorced in US other spouse and the family members is in India based on this foreign judgment how to deal interdependent things like child right cruelty and other financial matters that is that aspect is I think that the section itself is self-explanatory if you get a judgment foreign judgment from US on grounds of cruelty without a proper contest on the part of the wife or the other spouse who is supposed to be in India and that judgment is absolutely not at all acceptable in India and as far as the child is concerned in India what the law that we follow is guardian and wards act and guardian and wards act section 9 clearly states where the child ordinarily resides so if you have to move for the child rights you will have to move the court where the child ordinarily resides because in India you will have to move the court itself it's very clear thank you Parvati ma'am and it was as usual illuminating session and though the topic seems to be very short but it has its own implication professionally as well as for the stimulation of the mind itself thank you everyone stay safe stay blessed namaskar good night