Scribd
Upload
40 views

Issue 2

1. The wife's non-contest of the divorce petition filed by the husband in a foreign court does not imply that she conceded jurisdiction, as she was financially incapable of contesting the proceedings in New York and the court did not provide interim maintenance as required by Indian law. 2. The wife denied the jurisdiction of the New York court in a letter, and the court did not have jurisdiction over the marriage as defined in Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, since neither party resided in New York. 3. As Indian citizens, the parties were not bound by the decree of the foreign court that lacked jurisdiction over their matrimonial affairs according to Indian law.

Uploaded by

Archita
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
40 views

Issue 2

1. The wife's non-contest of the divorce petition filed by the husband in a foreign court does not imply that she conceded jurisdiction, as she was financially incapable of contesting the proceedings in New York and the court did not provide interim maintenance as required by Indian law. 2. The wife denied the jurisdiction of the New York court in a letter, and the court did not have jurisdiction over the marriage as defined in Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, since neither party resided in New York. 3. As Indian citizens, the parties were not bound by the decree of the foreign court that lacked jurisdiction over their matrimonial affairs according to Indian law.

Uploaded by

Archita
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

2.

Whether non-contest by wife of divorce


petition filed by the husband in aForeign
Court implied that she had conceded to the
jurisdiction of theForeign Court?

It is humbly submitted before the court that


non-contest by wife of divorce petition filed
by husband in a foreign court does not
imply that she had conceded to the
jurisdiction of The Trial Court of New York
supported by following arguements:

2.1 Financial incapability of contesting the


proceedings in the US.
Since Sunanda had no means to contest
the proceedings because she was residing
in Punjab, India from March, 2011 and Mihir
didn’t provide for any financial help for her
to visit and contest the divorce petition filed
by him.As she was unable to reach the Trial
Court of New York in person, she
approached the court through a letter and
prayed that she shall be provided legal aid
to contest the proceedings.

The Trial Court of New York should have


provided ad–interim maintenanceas per the
provisions of Sec 24 of The HMA , 1955 but
thecourt did not because it
was dealing with the law of the land and the
couple got married under the HMA , 1955
which is a statute of the domicile country.

2.2 Denial of jurisdiction of The Trial Court


of New York

It is submitted that the petitioner Sunanda


wrote a letter to The Trial Court of New York
stating that the ex-parte decree of divorce
obtained by Mahesh wasnot binding on her
and was illegal and that she continues to be
the wife of Mihir and by such action
Sunanda denied the jurisdiction of The Trial
Courtof New York.It is further submitted that
as per the provisions of sec 19 of HMA,
1955 which specifies jurisdiction of the
courts to which thepetition shall be
presented, shows that the petition of divorce
filed by Mihir was not valid because the Trial
Court of New York didn’t have the
jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. Under
the provisions of Sec 19 of The Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 only theDistrict Court
within the local limits of whose original civil
jurisdiction:
(i)the marriage was solemnized, or

(ii)the respondent, at the time of the


presentation of the petition resides,or
(iii)the parties to the marriage last resided
together, or

(iv)the petitioner is residing at the time of


the presentation of the petition,in a case
where the respondent is, at the time,
residing outside theterritories to which the
Act extends, or has not been heard of as
being alive for a period of seven years of
more by those persons who would naturally
have heard of him if he were alive, has
jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

The Trial Court of New York being a foreign


court, had no jurisdiction as inregard with
matrimonial affairs of the parties, as they
continued to be Indian citizens on the date
of decree of divorce granted by the foreign
court and hence, it would not bind the
parties. Since, Sunanda never resided in
New York,The Trial Court of New York had
no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy