Delhi High Court - Orders
Varun Bangia & Ors vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) & Anr on 29 September, 2021
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 439/2021
VARUN BANGIA & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Aditya Jain, Adv.
versus
STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondent
Represented by: Ms. Kamna Vohra, ASC for State
with WSI Neeraj, PS Shalimar Bagh.
Mr. Yashwant Singh, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 29.09.2021 The hearing has been conducted through Physical Mode. CRL.M.A. 15128/2021 (modification of order dated 25.02.2021)
1. By this application, the petitioners seek modification/ clarification in the order dated 25th February, 2021.
2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 resided in Canada after marriage which was performed in India on 14th February, 2019 and since differences between the two of them arose in Canada, they mutually arrived at a settlement on 5/6th February, 2020 and filed a petition before the Superior Court (Family Division), Province of Quebec, District of Gantineau, Canada. On 20th May, 2020 the Superior Court granted divorce to petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 on 6 th August, 2018, respondent No.2 filed FIR No. 478/2019 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL) 439/2021 Page 1 ofSigned Digitally 3 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:29.09.2021 21:37:36 at PS Shalimar Bagh as also a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
3. As per the agreement arrived at between the parties in Clause 59 it was also agreed that both the parties will mutually file a petition in Family Court of India to dissolve the marriage in India, once the divorce decree has been granted in Canada. Further, while seeking a decree of divorce the parties ratified the agreement arrived at between them and filed the same on the Court record and the order granting divorce made the terms of settlement an integral part of the judgment and recorded the undertaking to abide by the same terms.
4. When this petition came up for quashing of the FIR in question, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State pointed out towards the Clause 59 arrived at between the parties and that parties were required to seek a divorce by mutual consent at Delhi. On the petitioner filing a divorce petition before the Family Court, Delhi the petitioner was informed that there is no need to seek divorce as divorce has already been granted.
5. Thus, the moot question in this petition at the moment is whether a further decree of divorce is required by the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 at Delhi or not before proceeding in the entire matter.
6. Sections 13 and 14 of the CPC which deal with foreign judgment note as under:
"13. When foreign judgment not conclusive.
A foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title except--Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 439/2021 Page 2 ofSigned Digitally 3 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:29.09.2021 21:37:36
(a) where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction;
(b) where it has not been given on the merits of the case;
(c) where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise the law of [India] in cases in which such law is applicable;
(d) where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice;
(e) where it has been obtained by fraud;
(f) where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in [India].
14. Presumption as to foreign judgments The Court shall presume, upon the production of any document purporting to be a certified copy of a foreign judgment' that such judgment was pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction, unless the contrary appears on the record; but such presumption may be displaced by proving want of jurisdiction."
7. A query raised by this Court as to on what grounds the divorce was sought, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has not placed the petition filed before the Superior Court in Canada and seeks some time to place the same on record.
8. List on 7th October, 2021 before which date, the petition filed by the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 before the Superior Court at Canada will be placed on record.
9. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 29, 2021/'ga' Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL) 439/2021 Page 3 ofSigned Digitally 3 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:29.09.2021 21:37:36