Case Note: Smiti Shah v. Aakash Shah

High Court of Gujarat, 08 August 2025
Coram: Justice A.Y. Kogje and Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda

Facts

• The parties married in Ahmedabad in July 2008 under Hindu rites and registered the marriage under the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act.

• They later moved to Australia, where the husband obtained Australian citizenship in 2011 and the wife in 2015.

• Marital differences arose, and in 2016, the husband filed for divorce in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Sydney, which granted a decree of divorce in 2017.

• The wife contested the proceedings, filed for review (dismissed), and then returned to India, where she filed:

  1. A suit for restitution of conjugal rights (Family Suit No. 1738/2016), and

  2. A suit seeking a declaration that the Australian divorce decree was null and void (Family Suit No. 1499/2018).

• The Family Court rejected both plaints under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, holding that the foreign divorce decree was binding.

• The wife appealed before the Gujarat High Court.

Issues

1. Whether a marriage solemnized in India under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) can be dissolved by a foreign court applying foreign law.

2. Whether the Family Court was justified in rejecting the wife’s plaints at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

Arguments

Appellant (Wife)

• The marriage was under the HMA, hence dissolution must be under Indian law, not foreign law.

• The Australian decree was based on irretrievable breakdown, which is not a ground under the HMA.

• Both parties were domiciled in India when divorce proceedings were initiated.

• Under Section 13 CPC, foreign judgments are not binding if they disregard Indian law or lack jurisdiction.

• Family Courts have jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act to decide matrimonial status.

Respondent (Husband)

• Both parties were Australian citizens at the time of divorce; hence, the Australian court had jurisdiction.

• The wife participated in the foreign proceedings and sought review; thus, she submitted to that jurisdiction.

• Once marriage is dissolved by a competent foreign court, Indian courts cannot re-examine.

• Under Section 1(2) & 2 of HMA, the Act applies only to Hindus domiciled in India. Since the wife acquired Australian citizenship, HMA could not apply.

Held

• Marriage governed by HMA: A marriage performed in India under Hindu rites remains a Hindu marriage governed by the HMA, regardless of subsequent change in citizenship or domicile.

• Foreign divorce decree not conclusive: Following Y. Narasimha Rao v. Venkata Lakshmi (1991) 3 SCC 451, a foreign decree is not binding if it applies foreign law to a Hindu marriage or is based on grounds not recognized under Indian law.

• Cause of action established: The wife clearly pleaded that the foreign decree was without jurisdiction. Therefore, her plaint disclosed a cause of action, and rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was incorrect.

• Family Court’s jurisdiction affirmed: Only Family Courts can decide on matrimonial status in India.

Decision

• The High Court set aside the Family Court’s orders rejecting the plaints.

• Appeals were allowed.

• The wife’s suits will now be tried on merits before the Family Court at Ahmedabad.

• A two-week stay was granted on the operation of the judgment to allow the husband to seek further remedies.

Significance

This judgment reinforces that:

• Hindu marriages solemnized in India are governed exclusively by the HMA.

• Foreign divorce decrees are not automatically valid in India, especially if based on grounds like “irretrievable breakdown of marriage.”

• Family Courts in India retain jurisdiction over matrimonial status irrespective of parties’ foreign citizenship.

End Notes: Key Case Laws Cited

1. Satya v. Teja Singh, AIR 1979 SC 105 – Held that foreign divorce decrees may not be binding in India if contrary to Indian law/public policy.

2. Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi, (1991) 3 SCC 451 – Landmark case holding foreign divorce decrees valid only if consistent with the law under which parties married.

3. Vikas Aggarwal v. Anubha, AIR 2002 SC 1796 – Courts can compel appearance of a spouse despite foreign divorce decree.

4. Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav, (2016) 13 SCC 308 – Marital status declarations fall exclusively within Family Court jurisdiction.

5. Sondur Gopal v. Sondur Rajini, (2013) 7 SCC 426 – Discussed change of domicile and application of HMA.

6. Dinesh Singh v. Sonal Thakur, (2018) 17 SCC 12 – Permitted divorce under foreign law for permanent residents, but subject to Indian recognition principles.

7. Michael Graham Prince v. Nisha Misra, MANU/KA/0611/2022 – Held OCI card holders not excluded from matrimonial relief.

8. R.M.V. Vellachi Achi v. R.M.A. Ramanathan Chettiar, MANU/TN/0166/1973 – Foreign judgment not binding if obtained without jurisdiction.

9. Rupak Rathi v. Anita Chaudhary, MANU/PH/0200/2014 – Wife can challenge foreign divorce decree in Indian courts.