Introduction:

In NM v. AK (2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 152), the Rajasthan High Court, through a Division Bench comprising Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal, delivered a significant ruling at the intersection of matrimonial law and recognition of foreign judgments, holding that a husband obtaining an ex-parte divorce decree from a foreign court without informing or giving an effective opportunity to the wife to contest the proceedings amounts to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and cannot be relied upon in Indian courts in the absence of a duly proved certified copy and compliance with the requirements under the Code of Civil Procedure; the case arose from a challenge to a Family Court order which had rejected the wife’s plea for divorce on the ground that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not an independent ground under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, despite acknowledging that the marital relationship had effectively collapsed, leading the High Court to re-examine the factual matrix, the conduct of the parties, and the evolving judicial approach towards irretrievable breakdown and cruelty, ultimately setting aside the Family Court’s decision and granting a decree of divorce while also affirming that the foreign ex-parte decree obtained by the husband in California in 2015 had no legal sanctity in India due to lack of procedural fairness and proper proof.

Arguments of the Wife (Appellant):

The appellant-wife presented a detailed account of her marital life and the circumstances leading to the breakdown of the marriage, asserting that the marriage, solemnized in 2010, soon turned acrimonious after she moved to the United States with her husband, where she was allegedly subjected to harassment, cruelty, and neglect, including accusations of the husband maintaining an illicit relationship with another woman, which created an intolerable living environment and ultimately forced her to return to India in 2013, after which the parties lived separately with no efforts at reconciliation from the husband’s side; the wife further contended that in 2015, the husband clandestinely obtained an ex-parte divorce decree from a court in California without informing her or providing any opportunity to participate in the proceedings, an act which she only discovered in 2018, and which she argued constituted a grave act of mental cruelty as it unilaterally sought to dissolve the marital bond and left her in a state of shock and uncertainty regarding her legal status; she emphasized that such conduct demonstrated the husband’s clear intention to sever ties without adhering to due process or respecting her rights, thereby inflicting emotional harm and undermining the sanctity of marriage; the appellant also argued that the marital relationship had irretrievably broken down, as evidenced by prolonged separation, multiple litigations, and complete absence of cohabitation or mutual trust, and that compelling her to continue in such a marriage would only perpetuate her suffering; she challenged the Family Court’s refusal to grant divorce on the ground that irretrievable breakdown is not explicitly recognized under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, contending that courts have, in appropriate cases, interpreted cruelty in a broader sense to include situations where continuation of the marriage serves no meaningful purpose and causes mental anguish; with respect to the foreign decree, the wife argued that it lacked legal validity in India as it was passed without her participation, without proof of service, and without her voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the foreign court, thereby failing to meet the requirements under Sections 13 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore could not be relied upon by the husband; on these grounds, she sought dissolution of the marriage by the High Court.

Arguments of the Husband (Respondent):

The respondent-husband opposed the allegations of cruelty and harassment, asserting that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home in the United States and that he had not subjected her to any form of ill-treatment, thereby disputing the factual basis of her claims; however, he admitted to having obtained an ex-parte divorce decree from a court in California in 2015 and acknowledged that the marital relationship had broken down irretrievably, effectively conceding that there was no possibility of reconciliation between the parties; the husband contended that the wife’s departure from the United States was her own decision and that he could not be held responsible for the subsequent breakdown of the marriage, and sought to rely on the foreign decree as evidence of dissolution of the marital relationship; at the same time, he did not provide sufficient material to demonstrate that the foreign proceedings were conducted in a manner consistent with principles of natural justice or that the wife had been duly notified and given an opportunity to contest the case, thereby weakening his reliance on the decree; while opposing the grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty, the husband’s admission regarding the breakdown of the marriage and the existence of the foreign decree indirectly supported the wife’s case that the marital bond had effectively ceased to exist in substance, even if not formally recognized under Indian law.

Court’s Judgment:

The Rajasthan High Court, after a thorough examination of the factual and legal aspects of the case, partly allowed the wife’s appeal and granted a decree of divorce, while simultaneously affirming that the foreign ex-parte decree obtained by the husband could not be relied upon in India, and in doing so, it made several important observations regarding cruelty, irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and recognition of foreign judgments; the Court noted that the Family Court had erred in rejecting the wife’s petition solely on the ground that irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, without adequately considering whether the circumstances of the case amounted to cruelty, which is a recognized ground for divorce; referring to precedents of the Supreme Court, the Court observed that compelling parties to remain in a marriage that has broken down beyond repair can itself constitute cruelty, as it subjects them to ongoing emotional distress and serves no constructive purpose; the Court then evaluated the conduct of the husband, particularly his act of obtaining an ex-parte divorce decree from a foreign court without informing the wife, and held that such unilateral action was a clear manifestation of his intention to sever the marital bond and amounted to mental cruelty, as it left the wife shocked and deprived her of an opportunity to defend her rights; the Court emphasized that matrimonial relief must be grounded in the realities of the relationship rather than a theoretical insistence on preserving a marriage that has already disintegrated, and that in the present case, the prolonged separation, multiple litigations, and absence of any attempt at reconciliation indicated that the marriage had irretrievably broken down; it further observed that the husband had failed to take reasonable steps to bring the wife back or resolve differences, and instead resorted to initiating foreign proceedings and seeking child custody, thereby aggravating the situation; on the issue of the foreign decree, the Court held that it could not be recognized in India as the husband had failed to produce a duly certified copy and had not established that the proceedings complied with the requirements of Sections 13 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, including providing the wife with a fair opportunity to contest the case, and that mere oral admission of the decree was insufficient to confer legal validity; the Court also noted that the wife was not a citizen of the United States and had not voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign court, further undermining the enforceability of the decree in India; agreeing with the Family Court’s findings on this aspect, the High Court concluded that the foreign decree had no legal effect in India, but nonetheless held that the cumulative circumstances, including the husband’s conduct and the breakdown of the marriage, justified granting a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, thereby setting aside the Family Court’s decision to that extent and dissolving the marriage.