Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rclb20

Download by: [ Jamia Millia Islamia] Date: 19 October 2015, At: 22:44

Commonwealth Law Bulletin

ISSN: 0305-0718 (Print) 1750-5976 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rclb20

Ancillary relief issues under Hindu law with specialreference to non‐resident Indians

Anil Malhotra & Ranjit Malhotra

To cite this article: Anil Malhotra & Ranjit Malhotra (2005) Ancillary relief issues under Hindulaw with special reference to non‐resident Indians, Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 31:4, 37-50,DOI: 10.1080/03050718.2005.9986725

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03050718.2005.9986725

Published online: 12 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 13

View related articles

ANCILLARY RELIEF ISSUES UNDER HINDU LAWWITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO NON-RESIDENT

INDIANS

Anil Malhotra & Ranjit Malhotra*

Introduction

This article primarily looks at the ancillary relief issues for family law matters under Hindu

law, along with the relevant penal provisions as applicable in India. Very recently, the

Supreme Court of India, in the matter of BP Adíala Ananá v S Appi Ready and another,1 in a

Bench led by the Honourable Mr Justice RC Lahoti, then the Chief Justice of India, high-

lighted the importance of marriage and ancillary issues related thereto, describing marriage

as a sacramental union under Hindu law. Paragraph 23 at page 326 of the judgment reads as

follows:

It has been held in India that right to maintenance arises out of the status as a wife and notby way of a contract or otherwise.

In Sri Raja Bommadevara Raja Lakshm't Devi Amma Gam v Sri Raja B Naganna Naidu Bahadur

Zamindar Garu? Spencer, officiating CJ, stated:

The obligation of a husband to maintain his wife is one arising out of the status of marriage. Itis a liability created by the Hindu law, in respect of the jurai relations of a Hindu family. Whenthere is no contract between the parties to a marriage, as among Hindus, a suit for maintenanceis not a suit based upon contract, but it is a suit arising out of a civil relation resembling that ofa contract, which is specially provided for in Article 128 of the Limitation Act

The reiterating of a 1925 ruling of the Madras High Court by the Supreme Court of India in

the year 2005 clearly demonstrates that despite, changes in the social fabric of the Hindu

society, the traditional nature of marriage as a sacramental union remains unchanged.

The focus in this article is mainly on Hindu law, given the fact that the legisla-

tion pertaining to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (HMAI955) has extra-

territorial application because a Hindu carries the personal law of marriage. This issue

assumes added significance, because part of the Indian population of Hindu origin who were

married in India under the provisions of Hindu law, before their migration, are now resident

overseas. On 7 January 2005, the Prime Minister of India, in his inaugural speech at the

Pravasi Bhartiya Divas, an annual function for interaction with the Indian diaspora, which had

delegates from 61 countries, acknowledged the contribution of 25 million Indians resident

abroad. It may be the case that couples of Indian origin resident overseas, popularly termed

* Anil Malhotra and Ranjit Malhotra, Malhotra & Malhotra Associates, International Lawyers, Chandigarh,India. Ranjit Malhotra was the first Indian lawyer to be awarded the prestigious Felix Scholarship to readfor the LLM degree at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Anil Malhotrahas been a practising advocate at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, India since 1983. Heobtained his LLM Degree from the University of London. He studied Comparative Family Law at theLondon School of Economics. This article was originally presented as a paper at the 50th anniversaryCommonwealth Law Conference, London, 11-15 September 2005. Reprinted with permission of theCommonwealth Lawyers' Association.

1 Reported as 2005 (3) Supreme Court Cases 313.

2 16 AIR 1925 Madras 757.

3 16 AIR 1925 Madras at 757.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jam

ia M

illia

Isl

amia

] at

22:

44 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

015

38 Commonwealth Law Bulletin Vol 31 No 4

as non-resident Indians, may choose to litigate on ancillary relief issues in the Indianjurisdiction, especially in situations where the couple have family ties in India, and assetsboth in India and in the foreign country in which they are habitually resident. In this context,the validity of foreign judgments, sought to be enforced in India, especially regarding main-tenance orders and child custody orders, are matters of serious concern. In continuation ofthe main discussion on ancillary relief, the article also refers to the validity of foreign courtorders and decrees.

Under all the Indian matrimonial statues, the question of spousal maintenance and allquestions relating to custody, maintenance and education of children are consideredancillary matters.4

Maintenance, Disposal of Property and Custody of ChildrenUnder Hindu

The Hindu husband has a statutory liability to maintain his wife under the provisions of theHMA 1955, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 (HAMA 1956) and the IndianCode of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC 1973). The crucial distinction is that, under ss 24and 25 of the HMA 1955, the wife is entitled to ask for maintenance only in the event of anymatrimonial litigation under the provisions of the HMA 1955. But there is no such restric-tion imposed by the provisions of the CrPC 1973. The wife, while invoking the jurisdictionunder the CrPC 1973, can claim maintenance if she is living separately from the husband andin the absence of any matrimonial litigation, provided that she qualifies under the conditionsstipulated in s 125 of the CrPC 1973.

Additionally, in certain circumstances the Hindu wife can also claim maintenance unders 18 of the HAMA 1956 in the absence of any matrimonial proceedings. The Bombay HighCourt, however, restricted this right under s 18 of the HAMA to a wife whose marriage wassubsisting. The Court held, in Panditrao Chimaji Kalure v Gayabai, that once there is a divorcethe wife has to seek relief under s 25 of the HMA 1955, or under the provisions of s 125 ofthe Indian CrPC.

Section 26 of the HMA 1955 deals with provisions for the custody of children, whiles 27 of that Act provides for disposal of the property of the parties to the litigation. Thereis also the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 (HMGA 1956), which is supplementalto the earlier Guardians and Wards Act 1890 (GWA 1890), that provides for laws relatingto minority and guardianship among Hindus.

Maintenance Under the Provisions of the Hindu MarriageAct 1955

Interim maintenance and litigation expenses may be awarded in any proceedings under theprovisions of the HMA 1955, subject to other conditions. In the matter of Shiva Kumar vPushpa Rekha, reported as AIR 2004 253, it was held that the grant of relief under s 24 ofthe HMA 1955 is not dependent on the ultimate success of the petition.

4 See Surinder Kumar v Kamlesh, AIR 1974 Allahabad 110.5 AIR 2001 Bombay 445.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jam

ia M

illia

Isl

amia

] at

22:

44 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

015

Ancillary Relief Issues under Hindu Law 39

Sections 24 and 25 of the HMA 1955 provide as follows:

24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings

Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife orthe husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or hissupport and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of thewife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of theproceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the peti-tioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to bereasonable.

[Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding andsuch monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of withinsixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case maybe.]

25. Permanent alimony and maintenance

(1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing anydecree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purposeby either the wife or the husband as the case may be, order that the respondentshall [***] pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such grosssum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the appli-cant as, having regard to the respondent's own income and other property, if any,the income and other property of the applicant [the conduct of the parties andother circumstances of the case], it may seem to the court to be just, and any suchpayment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property ofthe respondent

(2) If the court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party atany time after it has made an order under sub-s ( I ), it may at the instance of eitherparty, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deemjust.

(3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made underthis section has re-married or, if such party is the wife, that she has not remainedchaste, or. If such party is the husband, that he has had sexual intercourse with anywoman outside wedlock, [it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify orrescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just].

Recently, the Supreme Court of India, in a peculiar case, Amarjit Kaur v Harbbajan Singh and

another,6 held that the Court cannot make an order granting interim maintenance with a

condition that a DNA test of the child be conducted in view of doubts raised by the husband

about the child's parentage. The apex court was of the opinion that if the report of such a

test goes against the wife, she would not be entitled to maintenance. The Court was of the

firm opinion that such a condition is wholly extraneous to the grant of maintenance and is

per se unreasonable.

The Court ruled, in para 9 at pp 232 and 233 of the judgment, that

[T]he law in the matter governing the consideration and passing any order in respect of aclaim for a DNA test has sufficiently been laid down by this Court and if a party to a proceed-ing cannot be compelled against his/her wish to undergo any such test, we fail to see how theCourt on its own could have imposed a condition without any consideration whatsoever ofany of the criteria laid down by this Court, by adopting a novel device of imposing it as a

6 2003 (10) Supreme Court Cases 228.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jam

ia M

illia

Isl

amia

] at

22:

44 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

015

40 Commonwealth Law Bulletin Vol 31 No 4

condition for the grant of the interim maintenance, with a default clause, which as rightlycontended for the appellant, will have the inevitable consequence of predetermining the claimabout the parentage with serious consequences even at the preliminary stage ...

It is pertinent t o mention that ss 24 and 25 of the HMA 1955 pertaining to maintenancependente lite7 and permanent alimony, respectively, are distinct and independent of eachother. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the matter of Ajay Ahuja v Manju Ahuja,6 held, inparas 14 and 15 of the judgment, as follows:

14. Section 25 of the 'Act' deals with the grant of permanent alimony and maintenance. Itprovides that the Court exercising jurisdiction under the 'Act' at the time of passing anydecree or at any subsequent time thereto, an application made to it by the husband orthe wife order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for his or her maintenanceand support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum, as it may seem reason-able. It has been laid down in the said section that the Court may consider the respon-dent's own income and other property if any, the income and other property of theapplicant, the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case while grantingpermanent alimony.

5S. It would, therefore, be clear that under Section 24 of die 'Act' maintenance 'pendentelite' is to be granted while under Section 25 of the 'Act,1 provision has been made forgrant of permanent alimony for a period after the passing of the decree. The above provi-sions are, therefore, distinct and independent of each other.

Divorced Wife's Right to Residential Accommodation

The Bombay High Court, in two rulings reported as Ajit Bhagwandas Udeshi v Kumud AjitUdeshi, and Sunita Shankar Salvi v Shankar Laxman Salvi, ' ° held that the divorced wife cannotbe left without a roof over her head. In the case of Udeshi, the tenancy of the flat was forthe benefit of the family and the wife occupied the flat as a member of the family. While thecase of Salvi is important fronvthe point of view that, irrespective of the financial contribu-tion or joint ownership on record, the courts in India are concerned about providingresidential accommodation to a divorced wife who has no resources of her own.

Award of Maintenance to Wife and Child out of Void Marriage

In Ramesh Chandra Rampratapji Daga v Rameshwari Ramesh Chandra Daga,** the Supreme

Court of India gave a positive interpretation to the meaning of s 25 of the HMA, 1955. The

facts of this case are as follows:

The appellant husband was a widower with three children. The respondent wife's firstmarriage was dissolved by the execution of a document of dissolution in terms of the commu-nity practice. On the strength of the deed of dissolution, which was also registered, the appel-lant married the respondent. The marriage lasted for nine years and resulted in the birth ofa daughter; thereafter, matrimonial discord developed between them. The respondent

7 Pendente lite refers to funds paid by a husband to his wife while their divorce case is being pursued.8 2000 (2) HLR 666.9 AIR 2003 Bombay 120.10 AIR 2003 Bombay 431.11 Judgments Today 2004 (10) Supreme Court 366.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jam

ia M

illia

Isl

amia

] at

22:

44 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

015

Ancillary Relief Issues under Hindu Law 41

sought judicial separation alleging ill-treatment by the appellant. The appellant sought that

the marriage with the respondent be declared a nullity on the grounds that on the date of

the second marriage the respondent's marriage with her previous husband had not been

dissolved by any court Sadly, the respondent also disputed the parentage of the daughter.

The family court granted judicial separation and awarded maintenance to the respondent

wife. However, the High Court held that the marriage between the appellant and respondent

was null and void under s 11 of HMA (1955) and granted a decree in favour of the husband

setting aside the decree of judicial separation granted to the wife by the lower court None-

theless, the High Court maintained the grant of maintenance. The appellant and the respon-

dent filed cross appeals against the decision of the High Court

The apex Court dismissed both the appeals and held that the High Court was correct

in holding the second marriage to be a nullity and granting a declaration in favour of the

appellant Further, the Court held, that the appellant and respondent had lived as husband

and wife for nine years and therefore the family court and the High Court were fully justified

in holding that the respondent wife was entitled to a grant of maintenance.

The above view of the apex Court was based on the interpretation of s 25 of HMA

1955 which finds a mention in para 21 at p 373 of the above judgment. It reads as follows:

Section 25 is an enabling provision. It empowers the Court in a matrimonial case to considerfacts and circumstances of the spouse applying and decide whether or not to grant permanentalimony or maintenance.

The Court looked at the circumstances in the round, and gave a positive, meaningful inter-

pretation to section 25 of the HMA 1955.

Furthermore, s 16 of the HMA 1955 lays down the provisions for the legitimacy of chil-

dren of void and voidable marriages. These provisions confer legitimacy and all the succes-

sion rights on children of void marriages. In this regard, the law laid down by the Supreme

Court of India in Rameshwari Devi v The State of Bihar may be quoted in support In this

particular case a Hindu government employee had contracted a second marriage during the

subsistence of his first marriage. There were children born out of the second marriage.

Although the second marriage itself was void, the children born out of the second marriage

were held to be legitimate and also entitled to family pension.

It may further be added that the Supreme Court of India, in PEK Kalliani Amma v K

Dew',13 clearly laid down that the provisions of s 16(1) of HMA (1955), which are intended

to confer legitimacy on children born of void marriages will operate with full vigour in spite

of s II, which nullifies only those marriages which are held after the enforcement of the Act

and in the performance of which s 5 of HMA (1955) is contravened. Therefore, Indian law

does not discriminate against children, and by a legal fiction they are treated as legitimate

notwithstanding that the marriage was void or voidable.

Maintenance Under the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure 1973,Section 125

It will be noted that the ambit of s 125 of the CrPC 1973 also extends to maintenance of

children and parents. The relevant extract of s 125 reads as follows:

12 (2000) 2 SCC 431.13 AIR 1996 SC 1963.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jam

ia M

illia

Isl

amia

] at

22:

44 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

015

42 Commonwealth Law Bulletin Vol 31 No 4

125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents

(I) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain -

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintainitself, or

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attainedmajority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality orinjury unable to maintain itself, or

(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the firstclass may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make amonthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother,at such monthly rate, as such magistrate Maintenance, Disposal of Property andCustody of Children under Hindu Law 81 thinks fit, and to pay the same to suchperson as the magistrate may from time to time direct...

Maintenance of the Wife Under the Provisions of the HinduAdoptions and Maintenance Act 1956

Section 18 of the HAMA 1956 operates as an additional relief for a Hindu wife, enabling herto live separately without having to forego her right to maintenance. The provisions of thissection read:

18. Maintenance of wife

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a Hindu wife, whether married before or afterthe commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband duringher lifetime.

(2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting herclaim to maintenance -

(a) if he is guilty of desertion, that is to say, of abandoning her without reasonable causeand without her consent or against her wish or wilfully neglecting hen

(b) if he has treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in hermind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with her husband;

(c) if he is suffering from a virulent form of leprosy;

(d) if he has any other wife living;

(e) if he keeps a concubine in the same house in which his wife is living or habituallyresides with a concubine elsewhere;

(f) if he has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion;

(g) if there is any other cause justifying living separately.

(3) A Hindu wife shall not be entitled to separate residency and maintenance from herhusband if she is unchaste or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion.

The Delhi High Court, in Neelam Malhotra v Rajinder Malhotra,™ held that, after consideringthe status of the husband, the wife should be awarded maintenance pendente lite, eventhough there is no separate provision in the HAMA 1956 for grant of maintenance pendenteUte. The obligation to maintain the wife remains on the husband even though the wife might

14 AIR 1994 Delhi 234.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jam

ia M

illia

Isl

amia

] at

22:

44 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

015

Ancillary Relief Issues under Hindu Law 43

be living separately. The Court was conscious of the fact that the suit for maintenance under

s 18 of the Act might take a long time before it was decided, hence the wife in the first

instance cannot be subjected to starvation and then subsequently granted maintenance from

the date of filing of suit The court was of the opinion such a restrictive view would be

against the letter and spirit of s 18 of the Act. Section 19 of the H AMA I9S6 provides for

maintenance of a widowed daughter-in-law and is reproduced below for easy reference.

19. Maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law

(1) A Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall beentitled to be maintained after the death of her husband by her father-in-law: Providedand to the extent that she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or otherproperty or, where she has no property of her own, is unable to obtain maintenance —

(a) from the estate of her husband or her father or mother, or

(b) from her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate.

(2) Any obligation under sub-s ( I ) shall not be enforceable if the father-in-law has not themeans to do so from any coparcenary property in his possession out of which the daugh-ter-in-law has not obtained any share, and any such obligation shall cease on the re-marriage of the daughter-in-law.

It was held, in Chhabila Naik v Kanchani Patel, that an award of maintenance under the

provisions of s 125 of the Indian CrPC does not come in the way of s 18 of the HAMA 1956

when a court finds that the former award is inadequate.

Section 19 of the HAMA 1956 deals with the right of a widowed daughter-in-law to

claim maintenance from her father-in-law, subject to fulfilment of certain conditions.

Factors Governing Quantum of Maintenance

Section 23 provides that it shall be at the discretion of the court to determine the amount

of maintenance, if any, payable; and in doing so the court shall be guided by the consider-

ations set out in s 23(2) or (3) of the HAMA 1956, as set out below.

23. Amount of maintenance

( I ) It shall be in the discretion of the Court to determine whether any, and if so what, main-tenance shall be awarded under the provisions of this Act, and in doing so, the Courtshall have due regard to the considerations set out in sub-section (2), or sub- section (3),as the case may be, so far as they are applicable.

(2) In determining the amount of maintenance, if any, to be awarded to a wife, children oraged or infirm parents under this Act, the following factors shall be taken into account—

(a) the position and status of the parties;

(b) the reasonable wants of the claimant;

(c) if the claimant is living separately, whether the claimant is justified in doing so;

(d) the value of the claimant's property and any income derived from such property, or fromthe claimant's own earnings or from any other source;

(e) the number of persons entitled to maintenance under this Act.

(3) In determining the amount of maintenance, if any, to be awarded to a dependant underthis Act, regard shall be had to —

15 AIR 2003 Orissa 27.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jam

ia M

illia

Isl

amia

] at

22:

44 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

015

44 Commonwealth Law Bulletin Vol 31 No 4

(a) the net value of the estate of the deceased after providing for the payment of hisdebts;

(b) the provision, if any, made under a will of the deceased in respect of the dependant;

(c) the degree of relationship between the two;

(d) the reasonable wants of the dependant;

(e) the past relations between the dependant and the deceased;

(f) the value of the property of the dependant and any income derived from such prop-erty, or from his or her earnings or from any other source;

(g) the number of dependants entitled to maintenance under this Act

Section 25 of the HAMA 1956 also provides that the amount of maintenance may be altered

on a change of circumstances.

The Delhi High Court, in a recent ruling reported as Radhika v Vineet Rungta,*6

lamented the practice of parties to litigation not disclosing their actual income. In a terse

ruling. Justice Vikramjit Sen held, in para 3 at page 208 of the judgment, as follows:

3. Cases where the parties disclose their actual income are extremely rare. Experience,therefore, dictates that where a decision has to be taken pertaining to the claim for main-tenance, and the quantum to be granted, the safer and surer method to be employed forcoming to a realistic conclusion is to look at the status of the parties, since whilst incomescan be concealed, the status is palpably evident to all concerned. If any opulent lifestyleis enjoyed by warring spouses he should not be heard to complaint or plead that he hasonly a meagre income. If this approach had been followed, it would have been evidentthat the warring spouses enjoy an affluent lifestyle. It has already been noted that thelearned trial Court has not discussed the Husband's income. While granting maintenanceit is incumbent on the Court to make such monetary arrangements as would be conduciveto the spouses continuing a lifestyle to which they were accustomed before the matri-monial discord. In the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it has beencategorically pleaded that the Husband is getting a salary of US$ 72,000 per annum whichis equivalent to R.s.30,24,000/- per annum along with the perquisites. A mention is madeof the receipt of interest of approximately US$ 1,000 per month as also accounts in variousbanks. It is pleaded that the Husband is a joint owner of properties valued at overRs.2,00,00,000/-. The wife has pleaded that since 5-10-1998 she has been living at themercy of her parents; that she has no movable or immovable properties or other assetsin her name except a nominal amount of interest from deposits. It has been categoricallystated thatthe Wife has no income to support herself and to meet her necessary expenses.

The Court concluded, in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment at p 209, that

By adopting this approach an effort has been made to balance the income and the earnings ofthe Husband against the income of the Wife, and ensuring that the normal lifestyle and statuscan be preserved in some measure.

Custody of Children Under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955,Section 26

Although the HMA 1955 primarily deals with the provision of relief to only the parties of a

matrimonial relationship, the Act also ensures protection for any children resulting from the

16 2004 (2) HLR 207, AIR 2004 Delhi 323.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jam

ia M

illia

Isl

amia

] at

22:

44 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

015

Ancillary Relief Issues under Hindu Law 45

relationship. Section 26 of the HMA 1955 provides for custody of children of the parties tothe litigation, and is reproduced below:

26. Custody of Children

In any proceeding under this Act, the court may, from time to time, pass such interimorders and make such provisions in the decree as it may deem just and proper withrespect to the custody, maintenance and education of minor children, consistently withtheir wishes, wherever possible, and may, after the decree, upon application by petition forthe purpose, make from time to time, all such orders and provisions with respect to thecustody, maintenance and education of such children as might have been made by suchdecree or interim orders in case the proceeding for obtaining such decree were still pend-ing, and the court may also from time to time revoke, suspend or vary any such orders andprovisions previously made: [Provided that the application with respect to the maintenanceand education of the minor children, pending the proceeding for obtaining such decree,shall, as fer as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of noticeon the respondent]

Custody of Children Under the Hindu Minority andGuardianship Act 1956

It is important to advert to the provisions of the HMGA 1956, which is an Act to amendand codify certain parts of the law relating to minority and guardianship among Hindus. Theprovisions of the HMGA 1956 are supplemental to the earlier Guardians and Wards Act1890. The HMGA 1956, like the HMA 1955, has extra-territorial application. It extends tothe whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Under s 4(a) of the HMGA 1956, 'minor' means a person who has not reached the ageof 18 years. A 'guardian' in s 4(b) is defined as the natural guardian or one appointed by willor declared by a court of law.

In a significant judgment - Githa Hariharan v Reserve Bank of India,17 pronounced by theSupreme Court of India - Justice Banerjee observed that English law has been consistentwith the principle that the welfare of the child is paramount. Indian law does not departfrom this principle. This can safely lead us to conclude that the best interest of the child isa universally recognised phenomenon. Any court in any jurisdiction in any country alwaysmakes an earnest effort to stretch and interpret any statute in such a way that the welfareof the child is secured. If, however, this is not possible, then the court invariably utilises itsjudicial powers to do so. The adaptation of the principle of the welfare of the child is indeedsalutary and ought to be pursued irrespective of the rigidity of statute law. This guidingfactor is clear even in cross-border litigation which may emerge from a foreign jurisdictionor may have been initiated on Indian soil.

In another recent matter decided by the apex court, Kumar VJahgirdar v Chethana}*the exclusive custody of a nine-year-old female child by her mother, with visiting rights tothe natural father, was upheld on the ground that a female child of growing age needs moreof her mother's company than her father's, and that the remarriage of the mother does notdisqualify her from that role. The apex court, by not subscribing to the general observationsand comments made by the High Court in favour of the mother retaining custody of the

17 1999 (2) SCC 228.18 2004(1) HLR 468.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jam

ia M

illia

Isl

amia

] at

22:

44 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

015

46 Commonwealth Law Bulletin Vol 31 No 4

child as opposed to the father, clearly identified what was in the best interest of the child

without making any generalisations. In the opinion of the authors, such a positive identifica-

tion of the welfare of the child in deciding matters of child custody is indeed commendable

and laudable.

Maintenance of Children and Aged Parents Under Section 20 ofthe Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956

Section 20 of the HAMA 1956 places an obligation upon a Hindu to maintain their children

and aged infirm parents. It reads as follows:

20. Maintenance of children and aged parents. - ( I ) Subject to the provisions of this sectiona Hindu is bound, during his or her lifetime, to maintain his or her legitimate or illegiti-mate children and his or her aged or infirm parents.

(2) A legitimate or illegitimate child may claim maintenance from his or her father ormother so long as the child is a minor.

(3) The obligation of a person to maintain his or her aged or infirm parent or a daughterwho is unmarried extends in so far as the parent or the unmarried daughter as thecase may be, is unable to maintain himself or herself out of his or her own earningsor other property.

It will be noticed that the scope of the above-mentioned section of the HAMA 1956 also

extends to aged parents. But, in actual practice, in the prevailing social conditions in the

Indian context, it is very unusual for aged parents to move court against their children for

the award of maintenance.

Disposal of Property Under Section 27 of the HinduMarriage Act 1955

Section 27 of HMA 1955 empowers the court to adjudicate upon the division and distribu-

tion of the property of the divorced couple at the time of the passing of the decree. It reads

as follows:

27. Disposal of Property

In any proceeding under this Act, the court may make such provisions in the decree as itdeems just and proper with respect to any property presented, at or about the time ofmarriage, which may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife.

The Delhi High Court held, in Subhash Lata v VN Khonno,19 that s 27 of the Act concerns

only property presented at or about the time of marriage and which is alleged to belong

jointly to both the spouses. It is a pre-condition for obtaining relief that such property must

belong jointly to both spouses.

19 AIR 1992 Delhi 14.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jam

ia M

illia

Isl

amia

] at

22:

44 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

015

Ancillary Relief Issues under Hindu Law 47

Enforcement of Judgments and Orders of Foreign Courts in Indiaas Arising from Family and Matrimonial Matters in Overseas

Jurisdictions

Despite the ever-increasing population of Indians migrating and settling in foreign jurisdic-tions, the link with their home country is not severed. Family ties, connections of propertyand moveable assets, and other invariable links with some Indian jurisdiction often leads tocross-border litigation in human relationship matters. Situations abound where non-resi-dent Indians invoke the jurisdiction of the foreign court where they are resident, andconvince the overseas court to pass favourable orders in such matters which are thereaftersought to be executed in the Indian jurisdiction through the courts of law in India.

Indian law reports contain a number of judgments on matters relating to marriage,divorce, maintenance, succession, settlement of matrimonial property, child custody, paren-tal abduction of children from foreign jurisdictions in matrimonial disputes and cases relatingto adoption. Foreign court orders, once passed, are sought to be enforced or executed inIndia through the medium of the courts. Since there exists no separate provision for therecognition of foreign matrimonial judgments or other foreign decisions in related mattersin the HMA 1955, Special Marriage Act 1954, Hindu Succession Act 1956, HAMA 1956,HMGA 1956, or in any other Indian legislation relating to family matters, the only recourseis to s 13 of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC), which is the general provisionof law relating to conclusiveness of judgments by foreign courts.

The provisions of s 13 of the CPC are fully applicable to matrimonial mattersdecided by foreign courts. The precedents giving instances of such reported matters aretherefore available only in the form of judicial pronouncements of Indian courts whichhave from time to time rendered a laudable service in interpreting foreign court orders inthe best interests of human relationships rather than executing them simplkiter in letterand spirit The Indian judiciary, in such a pivotal role, is extremely humane and consider-ate in family matters in that it implements foreign court orders in a practical way ratherthan through a mechanical execution of the order or judgment of the overseas court.Perhaps this openness and fluidity is possible because the Indian courts are not strictlybound by a foreign court order in family matters, but when asked to implement orenforce them, the Indian courts apply principles of good conscience, natural justice,equity and fair play, thereby rendering substantial justice to parties in litigation. This canbest be seen in the decisions of some Indian courts where the court has been asked toimplement or execute a court order or judgment from a foreign jurisdiction. A fewdecisions are discussed below.

Reported Decisions

In India, a common issue that arises pertains to the recognition and indirect implementationof divorce decrees made by foreign courts and produced by spouses residing in foreign juris-dictions. In this regard, Indian courts have expressed varying views over time. Consequently,in 1991, the Supreme Court of India laid down fresh, comprehensive guidelines for therecognition of foreign matrimonial judgments by Indian courts. It may be pertinent to pointout that under Art 141 of the Constitution of India, the law declared by the Supreme Courtis binding on all courts within the territory of India. The apex court, in Y Narasimha Rao v Y

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jam

ia M

illia

Isl

amia

] at

22:

44 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

015

48 Commonwealth Law Bulletin Vol 31 No 4

Venkata Lakshmi, made it clear that Indian courts would not recognise a foreign judgment

if it had been obtained by fraud, which need not be only in relation to the merits of the

matter, but may also be in relation to jurisdictional facts. By this ruling, the Supreme Court

on the facts of the case declared a divorce decree passed by a US court unenforceable in

India. Interpreting s 13 of the Indian CPC, the court laid down broad principles to be

followed by Indian courts with a special emphasis on matrimonial judgments.

In Smt Neeraja Saraph v ¡ayant v Saraph, the apex court came down heavily on the

erring non-resident husband residing in a foreign jurisdiction and who had abandoned his

Indian wife without providing for any maintenance for her. At pp 490 and 491, paras 4 and

5, the court held tha t

4. [V]arious submissions have been advanced on behalf of the father-in-law to support theorder of the High Court including his helplessness financially. Is it a case of any sympathyfor the father-in-law at this stage? In our opinion not True the decree is ex porte. Yet itis a money decree. However, no opinion is expressed on this aspect as the appeal is pend-ing in the High Court. But the order of the High Court is modified by directing that theexecution of the decree shall remain stayed if the respondents deposit a sum of Rs3,00,000/- including Rs 1,00,000/- directed by the High Court within a period of twomonths from today, with the Registrar of the High Court...

5. Why the facts of this case have been narrated in brief with little background is to impressupon the need and necessity for appropriate steps to be taken in this direction to safe-guard the interest of women. Although it is a problem of private International Law and isnot easy to be resolved, but with change in social structure and rise of marriages withNRI the Union of India may consider enacting a law like the Foreign Judgments (Recipro-cal Enforcement) Act 1933 enacted by the British Parliament under section (I) in pursu-ance of which the Government of United Kingdom issued Reciprocal Enforcement ofJudgments (India) Order 1958. Apartfrom it there are other enactments such as Indianand Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Act 1940 which safeguard the interest so far UnitedKingdom is concerned. But the rule of domicile replacing the nationality rule in most ofthe countries for assumption of jurisdiction and granting relief in matrimonial matters hasresulted in conflict of laws. This domicile rule is not necessary to be gone into. But feasi-bility of a legislation safeguarding interest of women may be examined by incorporatingsuch provisions as:

Possible Safeguards to Protect Rights of Women Married toNon Resident Indians

(1) no marriage between a NRI and an Indian woman which has taken place in India

may be annulled by a foreign court;

(2) provision may be made for adequate alimony to the wife in the property of the

husband both in India and abroad; ,

(3) the decree granted by Indian courts may be made executable in foreign courts

both on principle of comity and by entering into reciprocal agreements like section

44A of the Civil Procedure Code (1908) which makes a foreign decree executable

as it would have been a decree passed by that court, provided the degree has been

adjudicated upon the merits of the matter.

20 Judgments Today 1991 (3) Supreme Court 33.21 Judgments Today 1994 (6) Supreme Court 488.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jam

ia M

illia

Isl

amia

] at

22:

44 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

015

Ancillary Relief Issues under Hindu Law 49

It will be noted that the proposed guidelines in both of the above-mentioned SupremeCourt rulings are meaningful and, if implemented, can mitigate the plight of wives dumpedin India by foreign husbands. Although the apex court has clearly stated the need for suitablelegislation on the subject, as yet no Indian law has been enacted to protect the rights ofdeserted and abandoned spouses in India. In essence, therefore, the judicial verdicts ofcourts of law are the only available law in India to come to the rescue of hapless Indianspouses who protest against uncontested foreign divorce decrees invariably obtained bydefault by spouses from overseas jurisdictions. Thus, some codified law in India on thesubject is undoubtedly an absolute necessity.

Another frequently litigated issue is in the area of international child abduction, wherean overseas litigating spouse violates a foreign court order and brings their child to India.The other spouse in turn comes to India and approaches an Indian court to enforce theforeign court custody order and seeking the return of their children to the foreignjurisdiction. Again, different Indian courts have expressed different views and, ultimately, theSupreme Court in Dhanwanti Joshi v Madhav Under followed by the decisions in SaritaSharma v Sushil Sharma23. and Sahiba Ali v State of Maharashatra,24 laid down conclusive

guidelines for matters of foreign child abduction.

It may be pertinent to point out that prior to the above rulings of the Supreme Court,courts in India were exercising summary jurisdiction, without going into the merits of thematter, regarding the return of children to foreign jurisdictions when the children werebrought to India in violation of foreign court orders. However, the 1997, 1999 and 2003rulings now indicate that irrespective of any direction or order of a foreign court, thepresent law requires the court to act in the best interest and welfare of the minor child inchild custody matters. Indian courts no longer carry out mere mechanical implementationsof foreign court orders.

As far as the forum for securing the return of children is concerned, it is important tomention that India is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Inter-national Child Abduction 1980. Therefore, parents are left with no remedy but to approachdifferent administrative and judicial authorities or courts of law in India for implementationof foreign court orders. Even though Pakistan executed a UK-Pakistan Judicial Protocol on17 January 2003, signed by the President of the Family Division of the High Court of Englandand Wales and by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, for incorporating andadopting the effective provisions of the said Hague Convention, India has taken no steps toadopt the Hague Convention. The Indian courts continue in their tireless efforts to impressupon parties that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in such matters.Until then, helpless spouses in such cases frantically wait to see if the Indian Parliamenteither enacts some legislation in matters of child abduction, or some other judicial mode isadopted to implement the Hague Convention. The need is undoubtedly dire and urgent.Something needs to be done quickly about it.

Another very contentious and complicated area involving persons of non-residentIndians and foreigners is the matter of inter-country adoption in India. When foreignspouses wish to adopt Indian children, they are faced with a maze of Indian laws and proce-dures which are both difficult and complicated to follow. Foreign court orders or otherdocuments from the country of origin of the prospective adopters are of little help and their

22 Judgments Today 1997 (8) Supreme Court 820.

23 Judgments Today 2000 (2) Supreme Court 258.24 Judgments Today 2003 (6) Supreme Court 79.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jam

ia M

illia

Isl

amia

] at

22:

44 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

015

50 Commonwealth Law Bulletin Vol 31 No 4

implementation is obviously difficult and at times impossible. The Supreme Court of Indiahas, from time to time, laid down guidelines governing the principles for inter-countryadoptions. The judgments in Laxmi Kant Pandey v Union of India25 have given repeatedguidelines for matters of inter-country child adoption in the Indian jurisdiction. Looking atall this, it has been felt that, in the best interests of the children involved, there is now aclear case for overhauling the existing adoption law in India by bringing uniform, compositeand clear legislation in matters of inter-country child adoption as changes are urgentlyrequired in this jurisdiction to resolve matters pertaining to adoption of Indian children inforeign jurisdictions.

Conclusion

As a brief concluding note to this article, it is submitted that, even though sufficient legisla-tion exists in India for providing maintenance and settlement of other ancillary relief, inactual practice the implementation and enforcement of this beneficial legislation needsattention. The quantum of maintenance awarded by the courts is generally quite low, andprocedural delays do not provide much succour to a spouse in distress. Issues of settlementof matrimonial property and custody of children are often overtaken by bitter matrimonialwrangling between the contesting spouses, and the benevolent purpose of the legislation forsettling the consequences of divorce is overshadowed in the courts where the focus is onthe divorce proceedings only.

The priorities in the courts need to change. Sufficient maintenance must be awardedand the children's rights need to be set on a higher pedestal. This is perhaps one area whichthe courts need to pursue with more vehemence and more generously expedite the settle-ment of adequate maintenance and distribution of matrimonial property, while providingquicker justice to the children of a broken marriage. The focus needs to change to ensurebetter rehabilitation of the parties and their children.

25 AIR 1984 SC 469, AIR 1986 SC 272, AIR 1987 SC 232.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jam

ia M

illia

Isl

amia

] at

22:

44 1

9 O

ctob

er 2

015