Neerja Saraph v. Jayant V. Saraph (1994 SCC (6) 461)

Facts of the Case

The case concerns the legal vulnerability of an Indian woman in a marriage with a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) who unilaterally sought annulment abroad.

• Neeraja Saraph (Appellant), an educated teacher, married Jayant V. Saraph (Respondent), a computer hardware doctor employed in the USA, in August 1989.

• Jayant returned to the USA shortly after the marriage.

• After initially corresponding and encouraging Neeraja to join him, Jayant's interest waned. By June 1990, he sought an annulment of the marriage in a USA court.

• The appellant's father-in-law acknowledged his son's decision but offered no compensation.

• The appellant filed a suit for damages against her husband and father-in-law, claiming the ruination of her life. The suit was decreed ex-parte in her favor for Rs. 22 lakhs.

• The respondents appealed, and the High Court stayed the decree, requiring a deposit of Rs. 1,00,000, with limited withdrawal permitted to the appellant.

The present appeal was filed against the High Court's order modifying the decree.

Issue

How can the rights and interests of women deserted by Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), particularly when the husband obtains annulment decrees from foreign courts without the wife's participation, be protected?

Rule

The Court, addressing a clear gap in the law, suggested that the Union of India consider comprehensive legislation to safeguard the interests of Indian women in marriages with NRIs. Such legislation should include:

1. Prohibiting the annulment or dissolution of marriages between NRIs and Indian women in India by decrees obtained from foreign courts.

2. Provisions for adequate alimony from the husband's property, both in India and abroad.

3. Establishing mechanisms, possibly through reciprocal agreements, to make Indian court decrees executable in foreign courts.

Held

The Supreme Court:

• Acknowledged Exploitation: Noted the widespread exploitation and desertion of women, particularly those from the middle-class marrying NRIs with expectations of a better future.

• Interim Relief Modification: While not deciding on the merits of the damages claim, the Court modified the High Court's order to provide better interim financial security for the appellant. The Court directed the deposit of Rs. 3,00,000 (including the Rs. 1,00,000 already ordered). The appellant was allowed to withdraw Rs. 1,00,000 and receive monthly interest from the remaining Rs. 2,00,000.

• Need for Legislation: Strongly proposed legislation similar to the UK's Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 to facilitate the enforcement of judgments and resolutions in cross-border matrimonial disputes.

• Directive: The appeals were disposed of with the modification of the High Court's order. The Court primarily used the opportunity to highlight the urgent need for legislative measures to protect women in similar situations.

Commentary

The Neeraja Saraph case is significant not for a major point of law, but for its role as a judicial catalyst for legislative and policy changes concerning NRI marriages. The Court's observation that Indian women are often treated as mere chattels after being deserted by their NRI husbands spurred government action.

The problems highlighted in this case are recurrent, as seen in Veena Kalia v. Jatinder Nath Kalia:

• The husband obtained an ex parte divorce decree from a court in Nova Scotia (Canada) on the ground of irretrievable breakdown (not a ground under the HMA).

• The wife’s subsequent petition for divorce in India was initially dismissed on the ground of res judicata (since she hadn't contested the Canadian decree).

• The Appellate Court, however, overturned this, holding that the wife's non-contest did not imply concession to the foreign court’s jurisdiction.

• Importantly, the court held that rules of natural justice were violated because the foreign court did not check whether the wife had the means and documents necessary to travel to Canada and defend her case.

• The divorce decree was held to be a nullity, and a decree in her favor, along with maintenance, was granted.

This commentary underscores the principle that lack of voluntary submission, violation of natural justice, and non-conformity with Indian matrimonial law are sufficient grounds for Indian courts to disregard foreign divorce decrees, aligning with the principles laid down in Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkatalakshmi. The Neeraja Saraph judgment further sought to buttress these protections with clear legislative backing.