The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, has held that a foreign divorce decree obtained on grounds not recognised under Indian matrimonial law is not conclusive and does not bar a Hindu wife from claiming maintenance in India. A division bench of Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma affirmed that a divorced Hindu wife retains the right to maintenance, partly allowing an appeal filed by the husband against a Family Court order but modifying the quantum of maintenance awarded.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by the husband against the judgment of the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, which had directed him to pay maintenance to his wife. The couple married on November 19, 1980, and have two sons. The husband, a retired employee of Andhra Bank, took voluntary retirement in 1999 and moved to New Zealand.
The wife, in her petition before the Family Court under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, alleged that she was forcibly sent back from New Zealand, deserted by her husband in 2008, and had no means to maintain herself. She sought monthly maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- and past maintenance amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/-.
The husband had initiated divorce proceedings in both the Family Court at Visakhapatnam and a court in Auckland, New Zealand. After obtaining a divorce decree from the Auckland Court on the ground of two years of separation, he did not press the proceedings in Visakhapatnam.
The Family Court, in its judgment dated June 30, 2023, allowed the wife’s petition in part, awarding her maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of her petition and past maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month from August 2008 to April 2011. Aggrieved by this order, the husband filed the present appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant-husband, represented by Sri Metta Chandrasekhar Rao, contended that since a divorce decree had already been granted by the Auckland Court, his ex-wife was not entitled to maintenance. It was further argued that she was receiving financial support from the New Zealand government and that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court was excessive.
The respondent-wife, represented by Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, submitted that the Family Court’s order was well-reasoned and based on the evidence on record, and thus required no interference from the High Court.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court framed key questions for determination, including whether the foreign divorce decree debarred the wife from claiming maintenance and whether a divorced wife is entitled to maintenance under the law.
On the Conclusiveness of the Foreign Divorce Decree
The Court examined the validity of the Auckland court’s decree under the lens of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which outlines when a foreign judgment is not conclusive.
The bench observed that the divorce was granted on the ground of “irretrievable breakdown of the marriage,” which is not a statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Shilpa Sailesh Vs. Varun Sreenivasan, which held that the power to grant divorce on this ground is vested only with the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. Referring to the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Deepti Vs. Anil Kumar, the bench noted, “Such a power is not vested in the High Courts leave alone the Family Courts.”
The Court found that the foreign judgment was not passed on merits, as the wife had not participated in the proceedings. Furthermore, the husband had failed to inform the Indian court about the New Zealand proceedings and vice versa. The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Y. Narasimha Rao and Others Vs. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and Another, which established that for a foreign judgment to be recognized, it must be rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction and on a ground available under the law governing the marriage. The Auckland decree failed to meet these criteria.
The Court also noted the husband’s admission of having a second wife, which in itself provides a valid reason for the first wife to live separately and claim maintenance under Section 18(2)(d) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
On the Right of a Divorced Wife to Maintenance
The High Court unequivocally held that divorce does not terminate a wife’s right to maintenance. The judgment highlighted that Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. explicitly includes a “divorced wife” in its definition, and Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act allows for permanent alimony even after a divorce decree.
In a key observation, the Court stated, “Disconnection of marital tie does not, by itself, terminate the right to maintenance, when such right is recognized by the statute.” It further added, “…upon divorce, a husband cannot completely wash away his hands, stating that he is not responsible for the remaining part of the life of his wife, unless there are legally recognized exceptions and excusable reasons, under the statute…”
On the Quantum of Maintenance
While upholding the wife’s right to maintenance, the Court reviewed the amount awarded. It noted the husband’s admission during cross-examination that he is a pensioner and owns properties in Visakhapatnam worth approximately Rs. 1.4 crores. Drawing an adverse inference against the husband for not producing evidence of his income, the Court nonetheless found it appropriate to modify the maintenance amount.
Decision
The High Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the Family Court’s order. The key directives are:
- The monthly maintenance was reduced from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 12,000 from the date of the petition (April 7, 2011).
- The past maintenance for the period from August 2008 to April 2011 was reduced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 8,000 per month.
- The appellant-husband was directed to clear all arrears within three months, failing which the amount will carry an interest of 6% per annum from the date of the High Court’s judgment until realization.
