Enforcement Abroad and Comity

Indian maintenance and personal-relief orders may be difficult to enforce abroad without reciprocal arrangements, but that inability can create enough collateral trouble. International law distinguishes jurisdiction to prescribe, adjudicate, and enforce. India cannot prevent a foreign sovereign court from acting under its own law, although Indian courts may decide whether to recognise the resulting judgment. Comity and finality matter, subject to competence, fairness, fraud, and public-policy safeguards.

Gujarat High Court (in 2025): Smiti v. Aakash Kirankumar Shah

The Gujarat High Court decision, involved a Hindu marriage solemnised in Ahmedabad in 2008. The parties later lived in Australia, acquired Australian citizenship and had a child. One spouse obtained an Australian divorce decree in 2016 after proceedings in which the other participated. Proceedings were then filed in India seeking restitution and a declaration that the foreign divorce was void.

The Gujarat High Court (contrary to other High Courts) treated the Indian solemnisation and HMA 1955 framework as continuing to govern the marriage, emphasizing absence of "irretrievable breakdown" as a ground under the HMA and held that later citizenship could not displace the law governing a Hindu marriage solemnised in India.

Other High Courts, however:

Karan Chopra v. State, Delhi 2026; Smiti Shah v. Aakash Shah, Gujarat 2025; Hima Bindu Maguluri v. Uol, Telangana 2025; PuttaSudershanReddy v. SushmithaNanavala, Telangana 2025; VikramaP. V. Mocherla v. State ofRajasthan, 2024; Kuldeep Singh v. Ranjit Kaur, Punjab & Haryana 2023; Nibu Mathew Titus v. Uol, Kerala 2020; Aviral Mittal v. State, Delhi 2009; and Paul Mohinder Gahun v. Selina Gahun, Delhi 2004.

An Analysis

The Gujarat High Court's view treats marital status as a civil status capable of acquiring a new legal nexus through citizenship, domicile, and habitual residence. Where both parties become citizens of another country, live there, submit to its courts, and receive due process, permanent subjection to Indian matrimonial law may conflict with private international law and comity.

Section 13 of the CPC does not require rejection of every foreign decree merely because the foreign ground differs from Indian statutory grounds. The Supreme Court's use of Article 142 to dissolve many irretrievably broken marriages confirms the statutory 'Gap'.

Foreign decrees should therefore be tested for jurisdiction, fairness and fraud, rather than rejected automatically because the marriage occurred in India or the parties are of Hindu faith.

A disturbing trend is emerging

NRis' investments in India are impacted on account of this. Many Hindu NRis cognizant of the difficulty, are opting to formally marry outside India and later only have a reception in India. If the trend continues, the South-East and even the Middle-East may become favourites for formal marriages including destination for family celebrations. One will have to wait and see what the Legislature and the Courts in India do. Till then it is for NRis to consider the situation and its ramifications.

Suggested Reforms

While the Courts should distinguish genuine incompatibility or irretrievable breakdown, unrealistic expectations, and retaliatory litigation rather than follow antiquated assumptions: the Legislature should harmonize the HMA and FMA; define connecting factors for NRI matrimonial jurisdiction; recognise appropriate foreign decrees based on domicile, habitual residence, nationality, or voluntary submission, subject to Section 13 CPC safeguards; develop bilateral or reciprocal mechanisms for maintenance and

matrimonial relief; discourage overlapping proceedings; strengthen early mediation; and improve speedy adjudication.

India may regulate the validity and the solemnization of a marriage occurring within its territory, but the place of solemnization should not by itself create perpetual exclusive jurisdiction in matrimonial litigation. Issue-specific connections should determine the proper forum.

Conclusion

NRI marriages reveal significant gaps in India's matrimonial framework. The present tension is between preserving the HMA's personal-law structure and recognizing today's realities of migration, foreign citizenship, employment and business, habitual residence and overseas adjudication.

A workable system must protect legitimate claims, prevent procedural abuse, respect due process and comity, and reduce conflicting judgments. Statutory clarity, judicial consistency, reciprocal enforcement, mediation and international cooperation are essential if India is to avoid becoming a forum for abusive, delayed and duplicative transnational matrimonial litigation. 

The author is a former Professor-cum-Director at the National Judiciary Academy Bhopal, now practicing as an Advocate. This legal analysis is consequent to observations of journalist Yogesh Sood at NRI gatherings