IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 3967 of 2010(U) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- VINCENT MATHEW, MADATHIL HOUSE, MANAKKAD P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.C.JAMES, MR.JOBY JOSEPH. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, COCHIN. BY ADV. MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST. SG OF INDIA . THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON 05/03/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.3967 of 2010-U - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P8 whereby, in respect of an application for issuance of passport, he was directed to produce a marriage dissolution order attested by a family court in Kerala. 2. The petitioner herein is the holder of an Indian Passport bearing No.4855107 issued on 21.3.2003 which is valid upto 20.3.2013. A copy of the same has been produced as Ext.P1. He was married to one Bindu Joseph on 6.5.2001 and her name appears as Bindu Vincent in the passport. 3. The parties were living abroad in connection with their employment. Finally, the marriage was divorced between them and a decree was passed by the Oxford County Court which is produced as Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is the copy of the communication issued by the counsel of the petitioner forwarding the same. 4. After the marriage was divorced, he has married one Smt. Manju Abraham under the Special Marriage Act on 14.2.2008 and Ext.P4 is the marriage certificate. She is also working in U.K. and is a holder of a resident permit which is produced as Ext.P5. For changing the name of the wpc 3967 /2010 2 spouse in the passport, he approached the respondent as per Ext.P6 application. The passport Ext.P1 was cancelled and he was directed to apply for a fresh one. In that regard, Ext.P8 communication has been issued directing to produce a marriage dissolution order obtained from a Family Court in Kerala. Ext.P9 is the copy of the resident permit issued to the petitioner also. 5. It is contended that in the light of the dissolution of the marriage as per Ext.P2, the petitioner need not produce any decree passed by a Family Court in Kerala at this stage, as the judgment of a foreign court is liable to be accepted. 6. The respondent has filed a statement in this regard. It is pointed out that the respondent has kept the application pending for want of dissolution order issued/attested by the Family Court in Kerala where the earlier marriage was solemnized and they have no objection in issuing a passport with the same particulars of the passport bearing No.E-4855107 dated 21.3.2003. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said stand taken by the respondent cannot be accepted in the light of the dictum laid down in various cases by this Court and the Apex Court. Along with a memo, he has also produced a certificate of entitlement to a decree which wpc 3967 /2010 3 was passed before passing the final decree as per Ext.P2 series. 8. That the decree of a foreign court can be accepted in this country, is settled by various decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court. In R. Viswanathan and others v. R. Gajambal Ammal and others (AIR 1963 SC 1) it was held by the Apex Court thus in para 15: “In considering whether a judgment of a foreign Court is conclusive, the Courts in India will not inquire whether conclusions recorded thereby are supported by the evidence or are otherwise correct, because the binding character of the judgment may be displaced only by establishing that the case falls within one or more of the six clauses of S.13, and not otherwise.” With regard to the jurisdiction of the foreign court also their Lordships held thus paragraphs 19 and 20: “Undoubtedly, a Court of a foreign country has jurisdiction to deliver a judgment in rem which may be enforced or recognised in an Indian Court, provided that the subject matter of the action is property whether movable or immovable within the foreign country. It is also well settled that a Court of a foreign country has no jurisdiction to deliver a judgment capable of enforcement or recognition in another country in any proceeding the subject- matter of which is title to immovable property outside that country. But there is no general rule of private international law that a Court can in no event exercise jurisdiction in relation to persons, matters or property outside jurisdiction. the courts of a wpc 3967 /2010 4 country generally impose a threefold restriction upon the exercise of their jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction in rem (binding not only the parties but the world at large) by a court over res outside the jurisdiction will not be exercised, because it will not be recognised by other courts; (2) The Court will not deal directly or indirectly with title to immovable property outside the jurisdiction of the State from which it derives its authority; and (3) Court will not assist in the enforcement within its jurisdiction of foreign penal or revenue laws.” 9. Following the above judgment, a Full Bench of this Court in Marggarate Maria Pulparambil Nee Feldman v. Dr. Chacko Pulparambil and others (AIR 1970 Kerala 1) held that the order of the foreign court is liable to be respected by Indian Courts. It was held that “a competent foreign Court has jurisdiction to pass an order for the custody of the children, even assuming that the father, the mother and their children are Indian and have not acquired domicile of choice of the country of that Court, provided it is established that the petitioning spouse had a real and substantial connection with the country of that Court or that the children were ordinarily resident in that country. And such order is to be respected by Indian Courts unless such a course would not be in the interests of the welfare of the children.” Of course, their Lordships held further that “in all cases the Courts need not blindly follow the order of custody passed by a wpc 3967 /2010 5 foreign Court. All courts in all countries should respect each other's orders passed with jurisdiction and passed after a fair contest, subject to any material and sufficient change in circumstances that would justify the alteration of the term of the order passed by the foreign Courts.” Of course, the said case was one concerning the custody of a child. But the fact that the judgment of the foreign Court can be accepted, is evident from the said judgment also. In Janardhan Mohandas Rajan Pillai & another v. Madhubhai Patel and others (AIR 2003 Bombay, 490), also, after relying upon R.Viswanathan's case (AIR 1963 SC 1), the very same principle was applied. Another judgment of the Apex Court in M/s. International Woollen Mills v. M/s. Standard Wool (UK) Ltd. (AIR 2001 SC 2134) was also relied upon to contend that the judgment of a foreign Court could be executed in India also. Reference was made to Section 13 of the C.P.C., therein. 10. Therefore, it cannot be a case where the petitioner will have to get a decree of divorce from this State simply because the marriage was held herein. The parties were governed by the laws of the country where they were living at the time of dissolution of the marriage and the court of that country was competent to grant a decree of divorce. 11. Here, one more aspect will have to be considered. The petitioner wpc 3967 /2010 6 has already undergone another form of marriage through Special Marriage Act and the certificate of the Marriage Officer has been produced as Ext.P4. Evidently, the said form of marriage was undertaken after undergoing various procedures prescribed therein. That also justifies the case of the petitioner that the earlier marriage has been divorced. 12. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P8 objection to the effect that the petitioner should obtain a marriage dissolution order from a family court in Kerala cannot therefore be sustained. The application of the petitioner will accordingly be processed with and appropriate action will be finalized within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/