The High Court · 2025

9:-lr.::t_lql the Respondents: SRt. VEDULA SRtN|VAS, REPRESENTTNG SMT.VEDULA CHITRALEKHA The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVTL REVISI ON PETITI ON No.924 of 2024 ORDER: This Civii Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the order dated

30.07.2024 in lA No. 462 of 2027 in OS No 267 of 2020' passed by the VIII Adclitional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L B' Nagar (hercinafter referrecl to as the'District Court')'

2. Thc rcvision petil-ionel is thc husband and the respondent is tl-re wifc. 'f he brief fac l-s of thc case, as averred in the Revision

3. Petition, ate that the revision petitioner and the respondent got married as per the Flindu rites and traditions in Hyderabad on

07.04.7996; that they were blessed with three children; and tha-[ during the subsistence of the.ir marriage' certain properties were purchased in tndia and also in USA'

3.2. The claim of the respondent is that a few properties were transfeirccl from her father and brothers to the name of the ') L.\ A,J C R I'\o.D!ol2Dl petitioner as a gift, upon insistence of the petitiol-rer, and a few were purchased in the name of the petiiioner, but were financed by her [ather and brothers. That as certain disputes arose between the parties, they were living seprarately since 01.05.201g; and that as the parties were residing in USA, the respondent has filed Divorce Petition before the Common Wealth of Massachusetts, the Irial Court Probate, and the Family Court Departrnent (hereinafter referrecl to as the 'Foreign Court,), and that the parties also entered into a Parties Joint Stipulation deed, dated 18.04.2019, for division of thc properties, financial issues, education of children, etc; that the Foreign Cour.t by orcler dated

22.06.2020, uidc Docket No.NO190424DR, granted divorce ro rhe parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of rnarriage uncler the Massachusetts General f-aw (MGL) and ruled upon other aspects in coniention as wcll; one among them being the dispute with regard to division of the properties, wherein it was held that both the parties shall have 50-50 ownership over all the scheduled properties. (. ---.- -) t.^A.J C R P no 9)t oJ 2021

3.4 Accordingly, the respondent filed OS.No.267 of 2020 onthe file of the District Court seeking partition of the schedule properties in terms of the Foreign Court Judgment dated

22.06.2020, since the said Court is in non-reciprocating counhy and the judgment of thc said Court can be executed only if the Court having competent iurisdiction allows it

3.5 During the pendency of the said OS.No.267 of 2020, the rev1s10n petitioner filcd an tA.No.462 of 2027 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the grounci that there is no genuine cause of actiory that the suit is barred by law and further, thc suit is aiso undervalued and thereby, praying to reject the plaint filed by the lespondent. The District Court, after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 30.01.2024 dismissed the said application Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Civil Revision Petition

4. Heard Sri Avinash Desai, learnecl seniot counsel appearing for Sri A.Narasimha Rao, lcarned counsel on record for the petitioner and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel 4 L,\''1,J (.R.P ,\o 9)J of )011 appearing for Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel on record for the respondent

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitior.rer submitted that the impugned order is contrary to law, facts of thc case, and the probabilities of the matter. He further submitted that reliance is placed by the District Court on the juclgment of a Foreign Court dated 22.06.2020, which is not binding or. conclusive and, therefore, it camot fornr basis for granting the relief of partition, as sought for by the respondent. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the District Court erred in construing that the Foreign Court judgment is reflecting a mutual agreement between the parties concerning the clivision of the properties sihrated in India, while simultaneously holding that the ground on which divorce was granted iu the foreign .Jurisdiction, zrlz., namely iretrievable breakdown of marriage, is not a recognized ground under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

6. Learned senior counsel further contencled that under Hindu law, there is no legal basis for granting 50% share to the wife in the husband,s properties and as such, placing reliance on ----- 5 Li\A J (: R P \o Yl of 2El the Foreign Court judgment for division of the properties is misconceived and without legal sanction under Indian jurisprudence. [Ie also contended that the suit instituted by the respondent does not conform to the requirements of Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. He further contendecl that the suit is barred by Iimitation and lacks a valid cause of action since the Foreign Court judgment, which is the foundation of the suit, was delivered ex-parte and several defendants arrayed in the present suit were not parties to the said foreign court proceedings and therefore, the judgment of the Foreign Court cannot be said to have any binding ef fect on thern or on the properties sil-rrated in India.

7. Learned seniot counsel for the petitioner further drew the attention of this Court to a notice dated 04.05.2020 got issued through the petitioner's counsel to the Foreign Court, obiecting to the divorce proceedings on iurisdictional grounds. Though the said notice was received by the Foreign Court on 07.05.2020, it was not taken into consideration and the .iudgment was delivered /' 6 L,\'.1J (- R P .\o 9)t of)AJ! on 22.06.2020 soiely on the appearance of the respondent/wife and it was erroneously recorded as a judgment by agreement of parties, which is contrary to tl-re record

8. L.earned senior counsel submitted that the suit is not properly valued and the requisite court fee has not been paid, therefore, the Original Suit is not maintainable and is liable to be reiecteci. I Ie further contended that earlier also, the r.espondent Irad instituted a suit in O.S.No.84 of 2020 before the Junior Civil Judge, Rajendranagar, with regard to the same immovable properties. Hence, the present suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC and finally, he prayed to allow the Revision Petition

9. Per contrn, the learned senior counsel for respondent submitted that the District Court has duly consiclered the facts and circumstances of the case and the law, w.l-rile passing the irnpugned order and hence, the same is sustainable. He further submitted that as per settled principies of lan., if any Foreign Court passes a judgment with the consent of the parties, then the same would be valid in India, even if it is not in accordance with the Indiarr matrimonial laws. In the instant case, since the 7 1_,\il.J C R P |o 9)J ol )0)1 petitioner submitted himself to the jurisciiction of the Foreign Court, the judgment passed by the Foreign Cou rt is valid in

10. Learned senior counsel further submitted that though the scheduled properties stand in the name of the petitioner' they are not his self-acquired properties and they are either gifted or financed by the father and brothels of the respondent and hence' the respondent has right over the saicl properties' He further submitted that in the plaint, the respondent has shown the cause of action for filing the suit, and as far as the rejection of the plaint is concerned, the same has to be adjudicateci in the main suit and cannot be dealt with in an interlocutory application and he finaily, submitted that the Revision Petition is devoid of any merit and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed' CoNSIDERATION: 77 From the above factual matrix of the case and the material placecl on record, the only point that arises for consideration in this Revision Petition is 8 L-\A.J C R P \o Dl al)0)l Whether the impugned order passed by the District Court requires interference or modificatiol by this court and the plaint is liable to be rejected orr the grotmds raised by the reoisiotr petitioter?

72. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the District Court had analyzed in detail the legal framework under Sections 13 ancl 14 of CPC, to ascertain whether the Foreign Court judgment relied upon by the respondent could be considered at the stagc of adjudicating application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

13. Though, the suit is based on the judgment c{ated 72.06.2020 passed by the Foreign Court, i.e., a Court in non-reciprocating country, the same cannot be brushed aside without considering its compliancc with the parameters under Section 13 CPC. fhat apart, after perusing the material placed on record, i.e., the emails sent by the petitioner to the respondent dated 04.10.2011 and

23.02.2075, it is eviclent that the petitioner had willingly submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Foreign Court and was represented by a counsel before the said Court. Further, even prioi ro the respondent taking any steps, the petitioner had I,};A,J C.R l' \o 921 a[20Ja 9 initiated the process of appointing an Attornev for division of the assets, debts and custody of children

14. Admittedly, the Foreign Court passed the clecree of divorce taiing into account Parties Joint Stipulation deed dated

78.04.2079 which contains specific terms regarding the division of properties, including the immovable properties situated in India' There is no material placed before this Court to indicate that the said decree was obtained by fraud, or that it violates principles of natural justice or lndian Iaw.

15. In support of their respective contentions' learned counsel for both the parties have relied uPon the iudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y. Narasimha Rao t:s' Y' Vutkata Lakshntil ' In the said judgment, it is held as hereunder: ......The jurisdiction assumecl by tlrc foreign court as '20. toell as thz grounds on u'hicl'r the relief is granted must be in nccordancetuitltthematrimoniallaruunderulichthcpnrtiesare married. The exceptions to this rule may be as folloros: @ ufure tlrmatrimonial action is filed in tfu forum uhere the respotldent is domicilert or habitually and permanently resides nnci the relief ' (1991) 3 SCC 451 t0 I,TA,J C R P,\'o 92J of202t ts grnntad on a ground naailable in the nntrintoninl laro tmder toltich tlrc pnrties are mnrried; (ii) tohere the resportdent tolrtntnrilrl nnd effecLirtely stfuntits to the jurisdictron of tlte forttrtt ns discLtssarl nbotrc and contests the claint tulticlt is bnsed ott n grouru.l nt,ailnble under the matrimonial lato undcr rultich tlrc pnrtiL's nre ntnrried; (iii) tohere the responrlertt consents to [lle grnrtl L'tf the rclief altlnugh the jurisdiction of the forum ts not in ncc()rdtt (:! uith the prooisions of the nntrimonial lau of the pnr t ies

16. It is the case o[ the petitioner that the Foreign Court has no jurisdictiorr nor has he voluntarily submitted himself to its jurisdictior-r ancl hence, the judgment passed by the Foreign Court is unenfor.ccable. On the contrary, the record reveals that the petitioner has voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Foreign Court, which is evident from ihe emails sent by him to the respondent, dated 04.70.2077 and 23.02.2075. Furrher, the petitioner has er.en contested the case in the Foreign Court by appointing an Attorney, signed the joint stipulation deed, ctc., wilhout dn) protest. II L\I,J a R P \o 9)1 o1 )0)l

17. Hence, it is clear that the instant case squarely falls under exception (iii) carved out by the I{on'ble Supreme Court in Y.Narasimha Rao's case (cited supra).

18. [t was only on 09.05.2020, i.e., right after the petitioner reached India and just before passing of the judgment in the OS, that he sent a notice to the Foreign Court stating that it has no jurisdiction to deal with the case. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Foreign Court has passed the judgment without iurisdiction.

19. Further, the contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a rccognized ground under the Hindu Marriage Act and hence, the judgment passed by the Foreign Court should not be given any effect is untenable in view of voluntary submission of the petitioner to the jurisdiction of the Foreign Court. The suit in question is not for enforcement of the divorce decree granted by Forcign Court, but is a suit for partition, wherein the respondent asserts her rights over certain properties on the basis of mutual agreement ancl independent title. The reference to the judgment of the Foreign Court is only to reinforce the background of l2 I,A,A J C.R.P No.Dj of 202J separation and the ierms mufually agreed upon by the parties. Hence, the contention of ihe petitioner that the judgment of the Foreign Court is not binding and conclusive is untenable. This Court does not fintl infirmity or irregularity in the impugned judgmcnt passed by the District Court and its observation that the prescnt suit is merely to enforce the judgment passed by the Foreign Court orrly to the exient of division of properties and it has nothing to r.r,ith regard to the decree of divorce granted by the Foreigrr Couri after the consent of both the parties. 20. Insofar as objection raised by the petitioner that the suit is barred b1, limitation is concerned, the said issue is mixed question of fact ar.r<1 law and can be conclusively determined onl1, after a full-fleclged trial of the suit and therefore, the same is untena ble. 21 Insoiar as the objectiorr raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit is not properly valued and the requtsite court fee has not been paid, i.e., the respondent instead of valuing the suit uncjer Section 3 (1) of the Act, unden alued the same is concemecl, it is apt to refer to the juclgment of the t-.\:1.J CRP\oDlol)0)t 13 Iiigtr Court of Judicaturc for the States of Telananga and Andhra Pracleslr in Pranit Proiects Q) Ltd' Hyilerabatl and others Vs' Gotrtrrlra Yttdaiah at'd othersz, wherein while a similar issue fell for cot'rsiciet a tion, the Court, by placing reliance on the decisions oi Irull lJench and Division Bench, lreld that no pre.trial roving enquiry is required to be conducted by the Court to decide the issue of Court fce on several disputed questions of fact where it rcqu ircs elaborate evidence with reference to the documents including by testing in cross-examination under Section 137 of the L.viclcnce Act and further' it was made clear that the trial CorLrt sha[[ frarnc specific issue in this regard on sufficiency or othenvise of the valuation made in the plaint and Court fees paid andansrt,erthesamealongwithotherissuesinthefinal acliuclication, if required so as to direct for Payment of sufficient Court fee

22. The above judgment is squarely applicable to the present casc. In the case on hand, the respondent's plea of joint possession of the properties cannot be brushed aside at the ' ro H(6) At.D lli 11 t,\ 1../ c R.P \a 9:1 o.t)0:1 threshold and the same nceds to be ascer.tained and decideci by the Court by elaboratc eviclence wiih reference to the documents including by testing the same in the cross_examina iion. Thus, this Court opines that the District Court has rightly held that the plea of joint possession asserfecl bv the respondent, being petitioner,s wife till 22.06.2020, cannot be rejected at threshold and has to be adjudicatecl af ter. full_fledgecl irial.

23. The trial Courr shaU frar.ne a spccific issue as regards sufficiency of Court fee ancl answer the said isstre along with other issues in the fi^al acljudication, or even otherwise, if it is found during the irial ihat the respondent is not in joini possession of the proprertics, tl_re trial Court can direcr payrnent of deficit Court fee. Also, a rider can be added to the effect that the decree drawn up is uuexecutable till paymeni of deficit Court fee.

24. With regarcl to objection as to the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the suit, it is pertinent to note that the suit involves various proper.ties and third parties, and it is not simply confined to matrimonial reliefs bctween r.evision petitioner_ husband anci the respondent_wife. Hence, the civii Court has L\".1 J (:.R t' l\'o 921 ol20)l ) jurisdiction to try the suit, and the bar under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act cloes not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case, as rightly held by the District Court' 75 It is also pertineut to note that the cause of action pleaded by tt-re resPonclent in the Plaint judgment passecl by the Foreign Court' but also on her not solely based on the 1S inclependcnt rights ftowing from alleged gifts and contributions by her father ancl brotl-rers Whether such claims merit consideration or not is a matter to be determined after full- fledged trial of the suit.

26. Furthcr, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the iucigrnent of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in P.K.Ananthart tfiya att Vs. Bharath anil otherss The said case is not lelcvant to the present case, as the issue in the case is with respect to the clivision of the assets and liabilities of a company'

27. In the instant case, in order to establish that the respondent has shown cause of actiou for filing the suit, learned counsel for I 201? scc onlinc Kcr 4748 l6 I.N'1J C.R.P \o 92J al)Da the respondent has relied on the juclgment of the Supreme Court in B and T AG z,s. Ministry of De/ertcea.

28. In B and T AG, s case, the Hon,trle Suprerne Court observed that "cause of action,, means the t,hole bundle of material facts, and the plaintiff has to prove the same in order to entitle him to succeed in tl-re suit.

29. In the teeth of thc aioresaid juclgment, ii is to be noted that in the instani case, prinm fncrc, the Resl_ronclent_wife has put forth the bundle of material facis in the prlaint in support of her relief for division of properties ancl therefore, prirna facie, the Respondent established cause of action for filing thc suit.

30. It is pertinent to note that it is well_settled prir.rciple of 1aw that the High Court in excrcise of its supcrvisory juriscliction under Article 227 of the Constitution shoulcl not interfere with a finding within the jurisdiction of the tribunal or a court except where the finding is perversc in raw, ir-r the sense that no reasonable person properry instructed in lar,r, courd have corne to 1 Q024) 5 SCC 35S ---.---........ L\"1..1 C llP No.921of20)1 t1 such a finding or tilerc is any misdirection in law or the finding is not based on any material eviclence or it has resulted in grave injustice to a partv' Exccpt to that limited extent' the l{igh Court has no iurisdiction

31. In the light o[ the foregoing reasons' this Court finds no legai infirmity, proceclural irregularity' or perversity in the reasoning aclopted by the District Court' On the contrary' the District Court has exercised its discretion iudiciously and in accordance with the settletl L'rirrciFrles of law'

32. Consequentty, the impugned order warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional iurisdiction under Articie 727 of rhe Constitutlon' CoNCLUSION:

33. In view of thc above discussion ancl the legal position' this Court does not find any rcason or ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the District Court and thus' the Revision fails, being devoici of any merit' 18 l.\ Ll (' R P .\o 92t af)i21

34. Accordingly, the Civil Revision pe ti tiorr is clismissed I{owever, it is made clear that the trial Court shallacljudicate and dispose of the suit uninfluenced by anv observations, if any, made, in this order J3- As a sequel, the Miscellaneous Applicltions pencling, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.V.S. PRASAD PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

2. 3

4. The Vlll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L. B. Nagar. One CC to SRl. A NARASIMHA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRT.VEDULA CHTTRALEKHA, Advocare tOpUCI Two CD Copies MKN/gh tt4a HIGH COURT DATED:26 t06tZO2S ORDER CRP.No.924 of 2024 ,....4 /i ,lI ',,!. 21 AIJB 2[6 {)F.s L!-r / CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISMISSED (, .*no> &-0"