Satya v. Teja Singh

SATYA VS TEJA SINGH
CITATION 1975 AIR 105
Bench:
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V., and
KHANNA, HANS RAJ, JJ.
FACTS:
On July 1, 1955, Satya, the appealing party, performed Hindu ceremonies to marry Teja
Singh, the respondent. At the time of their marriage, both were citizens of India and had their
primary residence there. The wedding took place in the State of Punjab at Jullundur and two
children were born out of wedlock.
The respondent, who was working as a Forest Range Officer in Gurdaspur, travelled for the
United States on January 23, 1959, to further his forestry study. He spent a year studying at a
university in New York before enrolling at Utah State University, where he spent around four
years pursuing a doctorate in forestry.
After that, he worked in Utah for a salary that would be comparable to about 2500 rupees per
month. The appellant continued to reside in India with her young children during these five
years. She never travelled with the respondent to America since, it seemed that he will return
to India after completing his studies as promised by him.
On January 21, 1965, the appellant moved an application under section 488 of the Criminal
Procedure Code 1898, accusing the respondent of neglecting the appealing party and their
two minor children, therefore, she asked that he be required to make a monthly payment of
Rs. 1000 for their maintenance. Respondent appeared via his attorney and refuted the
assertion that his union with the party making the appeal was ended on December 30, 1964,
as stated in the decree of divorce granted by the "Second Judicial District Court of the State
of Nevada and for the County of Washoe, United States of America."
TRIAL COURT:
In December 17, 1966, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jullundur determined that the
pronouncement of separation did not impose any restrictions on the appealing party because
the respondent had not "for all time settled" in the State of Nevada and that the litigant and
respondent's marriage could be annulled simply in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955. The respondent was instructed by the learned Magistrate to pay Rs. 100 per kid per
month and Rs. 300 per month for the support of the appealing party. The Additional Session
Judge Jullundur upheld this motion in an update, arguing that only the Hindu Marriage Act
permitted divorce.
HIGH COURT:
In a Revision Application, filed by him in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. A learned
single Judge of that Court stated that the petitioner was a resident of Nevada at the essential
moment when the divorce procedures were initiated before the Court in that State in the
United States of America. Since the respondent was legally domiciled in Nevada, and as per
an early English ruling that said that during the marriage the domicile of the spouse,
regardless, follows the domicile of the husband, the learned Judge held that since the
respondent was domiciled in Nevada so was the appealing party in the eye of law. Thus, the
high court held that the Nevada court had the authority to issue the divorce decree.
SUPREME COURT:
The wife appeal by special leave to the supreme court.
CONTENSTIONS RAISED:
1. The respondent argued that since the appellant was no longer his wife, he was free to
stop providing for her. He also made it clear that he was eager to take care of the kids
and keep up with them.
2. The appellant submitted her arguments by stating that the husband was not a domicile
of Nevada and has fraudulently led the court into believing that he was the domicile
of the state. Therefore, the court of Nevada lacked jurisdiction and is not eligible for
the due acknowledgement in Indian Courts.
3. Appellant further argued that under Section 41, Evidence Act, a judgment passed by
foreign courts involving Indian subjects shall be considered valid only if it is passed
competent jurisdiction. Here the husband had tricked the court and therefore the wife
cannot be compelled to submit to such a decision.
LAWS INVOLVED:
Section 13, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, makes a foreign judgment conclusive as to any
matter thereby directly adjudicated upon except where it has not been pronounced by a Court
of competent jurisdiction.
Section 41, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides that a final judgment of a competent Court
in the exercise of matrimonial jurisdiction is conclusive proof that the legal character which it
confers or takes away accrued or ceased at the time, declared in the judgment for that
purpose.
ISSUES INVOLED:
1. Whether the Indian courts are bound to give recognition to divorce decrees passed by
a foreign court?
2. Whether the respondent was the domicile of Nevada at the time of passing the decree
of divorce?
3. Whether the judgement passed by the Nevada court is conclusive in nature or not?
OBSERVATION:
The Judgment of the Nevada Court was delivered in a civil proceeding and subsequently, its
legitimacy in India should be relied upon whether it meets the requirements of Section 13 of
C.P.C It is not relevant whether the same is examined in Criminal Court in India. if the
Judgment falls under any of the provisos (a) to (e) of s.13, it shall be considered invalid.
The respondent never lived in Nevada before the proceedings commenced as a matter of fact
and had no intention of settling there permanently because as soon as he received the decree
he left for his job in another state. He did not reside there permanently instead he only stayed
there only for the period that qualified him to file a divorce petition i.e., 6 weeks. Under
Section 13(e), a foreign Judgment is open to challenge ‘where it has been acquired by
fraud.’ Therefore, the court of Nevada lacked jurisdiction and is not eligible for the due
acknowledgement in Indian Courts.
ANALYSIS:
The court observed that a sum of $ 7.50 each was enough to maintain the kids. Furthermore,
it observes that there was no community property to be adjudicated upon. Finally, it
acknowledged that both the husband and wife were living apart for more than 3 years and that
there was no possibility of reconciliation. The criteria in itself sketchy. The judge did not
refer to the socio-cultural aspect of this separation. It is very common for men to go to
different places in search of employment. in no way would this mean that marital bond has
been destroyed or that it could never be reconciled. There is an implied assumption that the
husband would return ultimately.
The judgement by the Nevada court was passed ex-parte, the court has given a very restricted
interpretation of the facts. it was not sympathetic to the situation of the deserted wife. The
court has not considered whether the wife had sufficient resources to appear in a court in a
foreign country. Even though the letter was posted, it could very well be possible that the
letter was not delivered to her. Therefore, it was not reasonable for the court to pass an ex-
parte order.
Thus, in my opinion the Apex court of India in this case has rightly observed the facts and
gave the appropriate decision.
CONCLUSION:
The Supreme Court ruled that the judgement and decree were obtained fraudulently and were
therefore inconclusive since the plaintiff misled the foreign court as to its having jurisdiction
over the subject, even though it could not have had that jurisdiction.

Satya v. Teja Singh

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Satya v. Teja Singh

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Satya v. Teja Singh

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SATYA VS TEJA SINGH

CITATION 1975 AIR 105

The wife appeal by special leave to the supreme court.

You might also like