Satya vs. Teja Singh, 1974

• Satya, the appellant herein, married the respondent Teja Singh on July 1, 1955 according to Hindu rites. Both were Indian citizens and were domiciled in India at the time of their marriage. The marriage was performed at Jullundur in the State of Punjab., Two children were born of the marriage, a boy in 1956 and a girl in 1958.
• On January 23, 1959 the respondent, who was working as a Forest Range Officer at Gurdaspur, left for U.S.A. for higher studies in Forestry. He spent a year in a New York University and then joined the Utah State University where he studied for about 4 years for a Doctorate in Forestry.
• On the conclusion of his studies, he secured a job in Utah on a salary of the equivalent of about 2500 rupees per month. During these 5 years, the appellant continued to live in India with her minor children. She did not ever join the respondent in America as, so it seems, he promised to return to India on completing his studies.
• In a Revision Application, filed by him in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. A learned single Judge of that Court viewed that as at the crucial time of the commencement of the proceedings for divorce before the Court in Nevada, the petitioner was domiciled within that State in the "United States of America”.
• This finding is the foundation of the judgment of the High Court. Applying the early English decision 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.
• The Nevada court according to the high court had the jurisdiction to pass the decree of divorce.

Whether a judgment given by the foreign court shall be considered valid in India or not?

ARGUMENT:- 

Learned counsel for the respondent argued that judgments on status ire judgments in rem, that such is the character of Nevada judgment (1) Smith's Leading cases, (13th Ed.), 1, 644 :at P. 651 and therefore that judgment is binding on the whole world.

Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act provides, to the extent material, 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.

But the judgment has to be of a "competent Court", that is, a court having jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Even a judgment in rem is therefore open to attack on the ground that the court which gave it had no jurisdiction to do so.

JUDGMENT:-

• The judgment of the High Court that the Nevada court had jurisdiction to pass the decree of divorce. To an extent, the appellant is to blame for her failure to put the plea of fraud in the forefront.
• If the fact-, referred to by us were pointed out to the High Court, it would probably have seen the futility of relying on the rule in Le Mesurier and then in applying the principle that the wife takes the domicil of the husband.
• But facts on which we have relied to show a lack of jurisdiction in the Nevada court are mostly facts to be found in the pleadings and documents of the respondent himself.
• Those incontrovertible facts establish that Nevada was not and could not be the home, the permanent home of the respondent. If the High Court were invited to consider the conduct and projects of the respondent it would have perceived that the respondent had merely simulated a domicil in Nevada.
• In that event, even applying the Le Mesurier doctrine the Nevada court would have had no jurisdiction to pass the decree of divorce.

The Court Conclude in this case that it is not necessary for the party against whom such judgment order or decree is sought to be used to bring a separate suit to have it set aside, but it is open to such party in the same suit in which such judgment order or decree is sought to be used against him, to show that the judgment, order or decree relied upon by  the other side was delivered by a court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion.