Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Thus. in Im1'vka'.s case'. Lord Wilberforce observed--"Le Mesurier was not a case concerned with recognition at all, but it would not be right merely to dispose of what was then said as obiter dicta. For, not only have later cases on recognition made it a ground of their decision, but also the reasoning itself rests on the hypothesis that a common legal structure can be found to contain both the domestic jurisdiction of English courts and recognition by' them of foreign decrees."

7.6. After the decision in Le Mesurier', then. the principal criterion for recog- nition of a foreign divorce was that of domicile. If the foreign court has oom- petence on the basis of the test of domicile, the decree passed by that court is unatfected---

In Raturnachai v. Ratanachai', recognition was accorded to divorces valid by the law of the domicile, even though not pronounced by any court.

3.9 The view that English law will not recognise a foreign divorce unless "decreed by a court of law" or "r'nvolvr'r¢5' 30-'Tie. lflfficifll P-"00I'3~93" 1133 110*: thus- found favour.' The Court of Appeal in Ru-is (Om Gefiefsl "- Rm' did; h_°'_"' ever, expressly rely on the fact that the foreign divorce involved some Il.{dI£'Ia.l process as a feature distinguishing it from the Hammers-m:'.r}: Mmiase CREE'-

jurisdiction in granting divorces for Iiepori on Recognition of iioreign Divorces (Chapter 10.--Engl:'s}r Act of I97! as to Recognition.) the most important departure from the conventional English rule under which. subject to certain additions or qualifications, the test of domicile of both the parfies is the test for the recognition of foreign decrees.' 1lI.4. It should be pointed out in this connection, that section 3(2) of the Act of 1971 provides that in relation to a country, the law of which uses the concept of domicile as a ground of (domestic) jurisdiction in matters of divorce or legal separation, sub-section [l){a) of section 3--that is to say, the test that either spouse must be habitually resident in the foreign countr}d--shall have eifect as if the reference to habitual residence included a reference to "domicile within the rneallitlg of that law". Broadly stated, the effect of this provision is that if the foreign country itself adopts the test of domicile as the test of its own internal purposes, a decree of court of that foreign country,--being a foreign country in which either spouse was domiciled at the date of the institution of the proceedings,--wou1d be re- cognised in England. It is obvious that in part. this sub-section preserves the English 'common law' rule of recognition on the ground of domicile, but, in part, it modifies that rule, since it is enough that either spouse is domiciled in the foreign country. It is not necessary that both" must be so domiciled.

II. RECII-"RCICITY----FIRST MEANING This -naturally brings to the forefront-the aspect of "reciprocity". Now, _$p'T'=::1.'{';_l°"o';E 3;

we-wo'u1:1 like to make it clear that the expression 'reciprocity' could be used ciprocity'. iii two senses. In the first sense, it means that the-same criteria of recognition sittzhsld, as far as possible. be adopted, by our law in relation to the recogni- t_io11"of' foreign decrees in matrimonial causes, as are laid down by law in rbspecti of the exercise of matrimonial §uri.stdictiorI by our own courts. This dspect-is better described as -the theory of "eqnivalencc'"'. Reciprocity, in this sense. is not concerned with the test adopted by foreign. courts in recogizising our decrees. but with the test adopted by Indian courts in exercising their own jurisdiction". This aspect, that is, the aspect of 'equ_iva.lenc_e as explained above. is certainly relevant to the subject of recognition as a whole'. Our own view on the subject is that reciprocity in this sense can be legitimately taken into consideration.