Statment of Jurisdictions

THE PETITIONER HAS APPROACHED THIS HON’BLE COURT, JALANDHAR UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT.

S.11-No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly andsubstantially in issue has been directly
and substantially in issue in a formersuit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or
any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try
suchsubsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and
finally decided by such Court.
S.151-Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect theinherent power of the Court to
make such orders as may be necessary for theends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
Statement of Facts :
1.Sunanda and Mihir
both residents of Jalandhar, belonging to theRavidasia community of Punjab, who are Hindus by religion, gotm
arried in Anand Karaj form of marriage, which is the marriage ceremony of Sikhs. The couple got their marriage
registered as per theprovisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and in effect a marriage certificate was issued
by the authorities.
2. Out of this wedlock, a child born.
3.After taking retirement from the Indian Army, Mahesh went to Englandfor higher studies and stayed there for
two years.
4.Mahesh moved to Canada and called his wife to join him along withtheir first child
6.He went to New York. Thereafter he asked Sunanda to go back to India.
7.Sunanda along with her child came back to Punjab (India)
8.Sunandawrote a letter to Mihir expressing her willingness to join Mihir in New York. Mihir in reply wrote to
Sunanda that she shouldnot come to New York, as he was interested in getting their marriagedissolved.
9.He filed a petition for divorce in Trial Court of New York on the groundthat his marriage has irretrievably
broken down.
10.The Trial Court of New York granted a divorce decree in favor of Mihir. Further, the court ordered that the
husband would pay to the
wife and children an amount of Rs. 50,000 per month for theirmaintenance. Later Sunita approached the Trial C
ourt of New Yorkthrough a letter and prayed that she be provided legal aid. Thereafter,proceedings were
initiated and warrants of arrest were wide against Mihir .
11.Sunita filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act,1955 for Restitution Of Conjugal Rights in the District Court, Jalandhar, Mihir appeared in the court and
filed an application fordismissal of the petition.
Statement of Issues:
2.Whether noncontest by the wife of divorce petition filed by thehusband in a Foreign Court imply that she had 
conceded to the jurisdiction of the Foreign Court?
3.Whether as per the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, Maheshcan be tried on the of adultery,
cruelty and desertion under section 13of the Act?4.Whether the principle of Res-Judicata under Section 11
of the CivilProcedure Code, 1908 is applicable to the proceedings being initiated inDistrict Court, Jalandhar?
5.Whether by accepting maintenance, Sunita in-effect has accepted
ARGUMENTS

1.The Respondent Submits that, the Hon’ble Court ought to be dismissthe present Petition on the ground that
the Petitioner had accepted theorder passed by the Foreign Court for dissolving the marriage between them.
2.The present petition was barred by principles of res judicata or in any case it was a mala fide attempt on the
part of the petitioner to harassthe respondent-husband and that it was nothing but a misuse of theprocess of
the Court
.3.The Respondent Submits that the decree of divorce passed by theForeign Court is legally binding on the
Petitioner, in spite of notice thepetitioner did not contest the same and by not raising any objection sheis
deemed to have accepted jurisdiction of the foreign Court in tryingthe petition there and, thus, making the
decree nisi absolute by theforeign Court

.4.The Respondent further submits that, by accepting the maintenancethe Petitioner again in effect in law

accepted the foreign judgment and,thus, was estopped from filing the present petition
.6.The earlier suit in the foreign Court was between the same parties andsubject-matter was also the same, i.e.,
grant of decree of divorce andalimony which is the very same subject in the present petition, andthus, present
petition was barred under Section 11 of the Code of
CivilProcedure and further that the judgment of the foreign Court wasconclusive under Section 13 of the Code.
7.It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the marriage
of Sunita and Mahesh is valid as it satisfies the conditions of validmarriage stated in the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955
 

9.It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that as per the conceptof comity of courts and sec 13 and 14
of CPC , the foreign judgement isin accordance with in the provisions of CPC, hence the foreign decree
of divorce acts as res judicata to the petition filed by the plaintiff