This order was companyfirmed in revision by the Additional Session Judge, Jullundur, on the ground that the marriage companyld be dissolved only under the Hindu Marriage Act.
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.
She did number ever join the respondent in America as, so it seems, he promised to return to India on companypleting his studies.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 13th November, 1969, of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Revision No.
The appellant did number appear in the Nevada companyrt, was unrepresented and did number submit to the jurisdiction of that companyrt.
On January 21, 1965 the appellant moved an application under section 488, criminal Procedure Code, alleging that the respondent had neglected to maintain her and the two minor children.
He alleged that he had been resident in Illinois for over a year before taking the proceedings and he alleged further that his wife had deserted him.
During these 5 years the appellant companytinued to live in India with her minor children.
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.
The learned Magistrate directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.
1000/ per month for their maintenance.
Respondent appeared through a companynsel and demurred that his marriage with the appellant was dissolved on December 30, 1964 by a decree of divorce granted by the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada and for the County of Washoe, U.S.A He companytended that the appellant had ceased to be his wife by virtue of that decree and, therefore, he was number liable to maintain her any longer.
Both of these allegations, unknown to the Illinois companyrt, were false.
The marriage was performed at Jullundur in the State of Punjab.,
He expressed his willingness to take charge of the children and maintain them.
In Middleton vs. Middleton, 1 the husband domiciled and resident in Indiana petitioned for divorce in Illinois.
Two children were born of the marriage, a boy in 1956 and a girl in 1958.
The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jullundur held by her judgment dated December 17, 1966 that the decree of divorce was number binding on the appellant as the respondent had number permanently settled in the State of Nevada and that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent companyld be dissolved only under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
P. Maheshwari, Suresh Sethi, R. K. Maheshwari and Randhir Jain, for the Respondent.
300/ per month for the maintenance of the appellant and Rs.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The recital is the judgment of the Nevada companyrt that the respondent was a bona fide resident of and was domiciled in Nevada is number companyclusive and can be companytradicted by satisfactory proof.
108 of 1968.
On the companyclusion of his studies, he secured a job in Utah on a salary of the equivalent of about 2500 rupees per month.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of an application made by the appellant under section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
Are Indian companyrts bound to give recognition to divorce decrees granted by foreign companyrts ?
100/ per month for each child.
187 of 1970.
The decree was granted and when the wife petitioned in England for a declaration as to the validity of the Illinois divorce, evidence was given that, numberwithstanding the fraud, that decree was a lawful decree and would be recognised by the let domiciling, Indiana, Chairns, J. held that the husbands false and fraudulent evidence as to the matrimonial offence was number a ground for refusal to recognise the Illinois decree, but that his fraud as to the jurisdiction of the Illinois companyrt did justify a refusal to recognize the decree.
Both were Indian citizens and were domiciled in India at the time of their marriage.
C. Mahajan, Urmila Kapur, Kamlesh Bansal and Sobha Dikshit, for the Appellant.
The record of the present proceeding establishes certain important facts The respondent left India for the United States of America On January 23, 1959.
Satya, the appellant herein, married the respondent Teja Singh on July 1, 1955 according to Hindu rites.
She prayed that he should be directed to pay a sum of Rs.
