By Gabriel Sawma Sunday, Aug. 21, 2011 at 3:03 PM
gabrielsawma@yahoo.com (609) 915-2237
gabrielsawma@yahoo.com (609) 915-2237
A Hindu divorce decree obtained in India in accordance with Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 may or may not be recognized and enforced in the State of New York. Such recognition, when it happens, is based on the concept of ‘comity’ in private international law.
Comity in Private International Law
A Hindu divorce decree obtained in India in accordance with Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 may or may not be recognized and enforced in the State of New York. Such recognition, when it happens, is based on the concept of ‘comity’ in private international law. The doctrine of comity is an acceptable solution to the problem of both respecting territorial sovereignty of the state in which the foreign judgment is sought to be recognized and enforced and the legal principle of private international law where no judgments would have any extraterritorial effect outside the countries where they were issued.
It is important to note that the conception of comity is not an obligation of any state to apply foreign laws. New York along with all other states, apply foreign law as a matter of international courtesy and good will. Therefore, the application of a foreign divorce decree would only be declined when the interests of New York State or its citizens and residents are impaired.
The definition of comity was provided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hilton v. Guyot in 1895. It laid down in a case on the recognition and enforcement of a French judgment in the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court, in defining the doctrine of comity, stated that “Comity, in the legal sense, is neither a matter of absolute obligation, on the one hand, nor a mere courtesy and good will, upon the other. But it is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to rights of its own citizens or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws.” (See Hilton v. Guyot, Supreme Court of the United States, 1895, 159 U.S. 113, 16 S.Ct. 139, 40 L.Ed. 95).
Personal Jurisdiction
The state of New York may recognize a Hindu divorce decree from India provided that the Indian court has personal jurisdiction on the couple seeking divorce. In a recent case, a wife, resident of Michigan, USA, obtained a divorce from U.S. court. Her husband went back to India and filed for a divorce in an Indian court. The judge of the High Court in Pune, India rejected his petition on the ground that the husband’s domicile is in the U.S., not India. The court ruled that “The man cannot confer jurisdiction on the court of Pune where the couple never stayed together for any length of time in their own matrimonial home (i.e., India), they having had their matrimonial home in the U.S. The HMA [Hindu Marriage Act] itself does not apply to the couple conse-qu-ent upon their domicile in the US and also because the rights between the parties have been settled by a judgment conclusive between them.” (See The Times of India, March 6, 2010). The husband in this case, presented to High Court in Pune, documents showing that he was domiciled in India; he also submitted his ration card issued in 2001, his driving license obtained in 1999, his 1995 voter identity card and passport with validity up to 2019. But the court was not satisfied with the documents: “None of these documents shows his intention to reside in India permanently; his Green Card shows he intends to stay in the US…It is easy to see that both parties have had the intention of making the US their permanent home even prior to their marriage. Since their parents reside in India, they came to India to be married as per Hindu rites.” (Id.)
Domiciliary is an important factor in jurisdiction over divorce in India. Under the Indian Divorce Act, 1969, domicile has great importance. A petition in any matrimonial case may be presented to the District Court or High Court on the basis of residence of the parties within that jurisdiction (or that the parties last resided within the jurisdiction of the court) or for dissolution of the marriage the parties are domiciled in India at the time of the presentation of the petition.
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Divorce in the State of New York
In one case, the husband went to Mexico, not for the purpose of residing there, but for obtaining a divorce decree. The husband remained at all times a resident and domiciliary of New York State to which he returned promptly and where he continued to reside and practice his profession, and that he was physically present since his return from Mexico, except for vacation or business trips. In this case the court ruled that the unilateral Mexican divorce without the consent of his wife was a “complete nullity.” (Lamb v. Lamb, 61 Misc.2d 1032 – NY: Family Court, 1969).
In another case, the Court of Appeals ruled that “In cases where a divorce has been obtained without any personal contact with the jurisdiction by either party or by physical submission to the jurisdiction by one, with no personal service of process within the foreign jurisdiction upon, and no appearance or submission by, the other, decision has been against the validity of the foreign divorce decree.”(See Perrin v. Perrin, 408F.2d 107 – Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, 1969).
If it appears that neither party to the divorce decree was domiciled in India and the arrangements the parties make to obtain it were collusive and contrary to the public policy of New York in respect to the dissolution of marriage, New York Courts would consider that divorce decree to be a nullity.
Gabriel Sawma is a lawyer with foreign background, member of the Lebanese Bar Association of Beirut; Associate Member of the N.Y. State Bar Association; Associate Member of the American Bar Association. Professor of Middle East Constitutional Law and Middle East Studies. Expert consultant on recognition and enforcement of foreign divorce in the U.S., http://www.islamicdivorceinusa.com/
A Hindu divorce decree obtained in India in accordance with Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 may or may not be recognized and enforced in the State of New York. Such recognition, when it happens, is based on the concept of ‘comity’ in private international law. The doctrine of comity is an acceptable solution to the problem of both respecting territorial sovereignty of the state in which the foreign judgment is sought to be recognized and enforced and the legal principle of private international law where no judgments would have any extraterritorial effect outside the countries where they were issued.
It is important to note that the conception of comity is not an obligation of any state to apply foreign laws. New York along with all other states, apply foreign law as a matter of international courtesy and good will. Therefore, the application of a foreign divorce decree would only be declined when the interests of New York State or its citizens and residents are impaired.
The definition of comity was provided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hilton v. Guyot in 1895. It laid down in a case on the recognition and enforcement of a French judgment in the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court, in defining the doctrine of comity, stated that “Comity, in the legal sense, is neither a matter of absolute obligation, on the one hand, nor a mere courtesy and good will, upon the other. But it is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to rights of its own citizens or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws.” (See Hilton v. Guyot, Supreme Court of the United States, 1895, 159 U.S. 113, 16 S.Ct. 139, 40 L.Ed. 95).
Personal Jurisdiction
The state of New York may recognize a Hindu divorce decree from India provided that the Indian court has personal jurisdiction on the couple seeking divorce. In a recent case, a wife, resident of Michigan, USA, obtained a divorce from U.S. court. Her husband went back to India and filed for a divorce in an Indian court. The judge of the High Court in Pune, India rejected his petition on the ground that the husband’s domicile is in the U.S., not India. The court ruled that “The man cannot confer jurisdiction on the court of Pune where the couple never stayed together for any length of time in their own matrimonial home (i.e., India), they having had their matrimonial home in the U.S. The HMA [Hindu Marriage Act] itself does not apply to the couple conse-qu-ent upon their domicile in the US and also because the rights between the parties have been settled by a judgment conclusive between them.” (See The Times of India, March 6, 2010). The husband in this case, presented to High Court in Pune, documents showing that he was domiciled in India; he also submitted his ration card issued in 2001, his driving license obtained in 1999, his 1995 voter identity card and passport with validity up to 2019. But the court was not satisfied with the documents: “None of these documents shows his intention to reside in India permanently; his Green Card shows he intends to stay in the US…It is easy to see that both parties have had the intention of making the US their permanent home even prior to their marriage. Since their parents reside in India, they came to India to be married as per Hindu rites.” (Id.)
Domiciliary is an important factor in jurisdiction over divorce in India. Under the Indian Divorce Act, 1969, domicile has great importance. A petition in any matrimonial case may be presented to the District Court or High Court on the basis of residence of the parties within that jurisdiction (or that the parties last resided within the jurisdiction of the court) or for dissolution of the marriage the parties are domiciled in India at the time of the presentation of the petition.
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Divorce in the State of New York
In one case, the husband went to Mexico, not for the purpose of residing there, but for obtaining a divorce decree. The husband remained at all times a resident and domiciliary of New York State to which he returned promptly and where he continued to reside and practice his profession, and that he was physically present since his return from Mexico, except for vacation or business trips. In this case the court ruled that the unilateral Mexican divorce without the consent of his wife was a “complete nullity.” (Lamb v. Lamb, 61 Misc.2d 1032 – NY: Family Court, 1969).
In another case, the Court of Appeals ruled that “In cases where a divorce has been obtained without any personal contact with the jurisdiction by either party or by physical submission to the jurisdiction by one, with no personal service of process within the foreign jurisdiction upon, and no appearance or submission by, the other, decision has been against the validity of the foreign divorce decree.”(See Perrin v. Perrin, 408F.2d 107 – Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, 1969).
If it appears that neither party to the divorce decree was domiciled in India and the arrangements the parties make to obtain it were collusive and contrary to the public policy of New York in respect to the dissolution of marriage, New York Courts would consider that divorce decree to be a nullity.
Gabriel Sawma is a lawyer with foreign background, member of the Lebanese Bar Association of Beirut; Associate Member of the N.Y. State Bar Association; Associate Member of the American Bar Association. Professor of Middle East Constitutional Law and Middle East Studies. Expert consultant on recognition and enforcement of foreign divorce in the U.S., http://www.islamicdivorceinusa.com/
Editor in chief of International Law Blog: http://www.gabrielsawma.blogspot.com
Email: gabrielsawma@yahoo.com
Email: gabygms@gmail.com
Tel. (609) 915-2237.
DISCLAIMER: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
DISCLAIMER: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
4 comments:
this law is well making by the court so that this type of issue is solve by the court is easily if you need more information how to solve this case then link here גירושין
I just want to give a quick advise to any one out there that is having difficulty in his or her relationship to contact Dr.Agbazara because he is the only one that is capable to bring back broken relationship or broken marriages within time limit of 48 hours. You can contact Dr.Agbazara by calling him on his mobile/ WhatsApp +2348104102662 or write him through his email at ( agbazara@gmail.com )
In our simple life, love plays a very specific role. Now we are able to make your love life healthy and no space for any type of trouble. These all are possible with the help of Dr. EKPEN of SOLUTION TEMPLE. He helped me cast a spell that brought my long lost lover back within 48hours who left me for another woman. You can also contact him on (EKPENTEMPLE@GMAIL.COM) and be happy forever like am now with his experience.
I am James Stood from New York, United States, I am really excited about the work of DR. ZUMA, if not for him, I could have committed a suicide by now, or join my ancestors now, my wife left me with our two kids without having any misunderstanding, I tried to console her to come back to me, nothing was working out, I tried my best to have her back, I begged her, kneeled before her and begged her in tears, her no was still NO, she said she is not interested in the relationship anymore, I cried all through running up and down the streets, family relatives all to have her back because I missed her a lot mostly my children, I was not even seeing their faces at all. After a week, she brought a divorce letter to me for me to sign, I looked up and down, tears rolled down and I was frustrated, I told her, I will have to think about it. To God be all the Glory, I was directed by a friend of mine to a specialist world best known male Love Spell Caster called DR. ZUMA, I speak to her on phone, emailed each other all the time and he told me not worry about anything at all, I should relax my mind and calm down that my wife is going to come back before the week runs out, he also said he don’t charge for any of spell works, all I have to do is to provide the money needed for him to buy the materials to cast the love spell on her, I send to him and after two days he mailed and said he is done with the work, that my wife is going to come back in three days time with our children and she will kneel before me and begged in tears and promise not to leave me with any heart break again and she will cancelled the divorcement letter. I hacking into the words of DR. ZUMA and believed in him, all to my greatest surprise the words of DR. ZUMA came to pass and my wife now love me and we are now living together as one. I don’t have anything to say thank you to DR. ZUMA so I have to tell the world about him and you also can find a favor in him by contacting him on his email address spiritualherbalisthealing@gmail.com Whatsapp: +1(506)800-1647
Post a Comment