| I. Civil Procedure - Foreign Judgment Conclusiveness (Sec. 13 CPC) | Foreign Judgment - Custody Matters - Conclusiveness - Scope of Inquiry: The petitioner sought a finding from the Family Court on all six grounds under Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) (e.g., lack of jurisdiction, not on merits, fraud) to hold a Texas Court custody order non-binding. Held: The Family Court's scope is to decide the main petition (FCOP) on its merits, and its finding that the foreign judgment is "not binding" is sufficient to decide the main dispute. Further inquiry into grounds like 'fraud' requires relevant material and is not essential for the Family Court to determine the FCOP. |
| II. Jurisdiction (Foreign Court) | Exclusive Jurisdiction of Foreign Court: The Trial Court's finding that the Foreign Court (Texas) cannot exclude the jurisdiction of Indian Courts (Family Court, Tirupati) in entertaining custody petitions was held to be well-considered and affirmed by the High Court. |
| III. Merits of the Case (Sec. 13(b) CPC) | Foreign Judgment 'Not on Merits': Where the petitioner contends they contested the foreign proceedings only on jurisdiction and not on merits, the foreign court's resulting order, recording the petitioner's non-participation on merits, is a clear indication that the decree was not passed on merits as per the petitioner's own submission. |
| IV. Direction to Parties | Use of Foreign Orders in India: The High Court explicitly directed that since the Family Court, Tirupati, has observed that the foreign judgments are not binding on it, the respondent cannot give undue credence to these foreign orders or rely upon them before any statutory authority in India for any purpose. |
| V. Review Petition | Disposal of Review Petition: The Review Petition was disposed of by incorporating the High Court's clarifying observations (paras 6 to 9) into the original Order passed in the Civil Revision Petition (CRP), thereby confirming and clarifying the original disposition. |
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
IA.No.3 of 2025 (Review Petition)
in
CRP.No.1372 of 2025
ORDER :
1. The review petition is filed primarily submitting that while the
CRP was heard by this Court and reserved for orders on
12.08.2025. As the orders in the CRP were awaited, the learned
Division Bench of this Court had allowed the CC.No.617 of 2019
on 12.09.2025. The petitioner had filed the contempt case
against the respondent for willfully disobeying the orders of this
Court passed in WP.No.47795 of 2018. This court had
pronounced orders on 08.10.2025. It is submitted that the
contempt case was allowed on 12.09.2025 and at paragraph 25
of the order, the learned Division Bench of this Court had
observed that the issue raised in Ground – D relating to
jurisdiction of the Court in Tirupati and the effect of the judgment
of the Court in Texas are issues which would have to be raised
before the Family Court, Tirupati.
2. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the learned Family
Judge did not determine the six points raised by the petitioner.
The six points are as follows ;
(a) Foreign Court Judgments stated above have not been
pronounced by a Court of Competent jurisdiction ;
(b) have not been given on merits of the case ;
2025:APHC:45924
//2//
(c) on the fact of the record refused to recognize the law of India
as well as founded on an incorrect view of International Law;
(d) the result of proceedings are opposed to natural justice;
(e) the result of fraud and ;
(f) founded on a breach of laws in force in India, as claimed by
the petitioner.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the Foreign Court lacks
jurisdiction to pass orders, more so when the petitioner had
disputed the jurisdiction. It is also the contention of the petitioner
that the respondent would be flashing the orders of the Foreign
Court before the Statutory Authorities and claim that the orders
which are validly subsisting and passed by Foreign Court are to
be honored and given due credencewherever they are produced.
4. It is submitted that the respondent had suppressed the fact of
pendency of proceedings before the Family Court, Tirupati in the
proceedings initiated before the Texas Court. It is also submitted
that the orders passed by the Foreign Court were secured by
playing fraud and seeks a direction of this Court to the Family
Court to give a finding on each of the six points raised by the
petitioner referred to above.
Consideration of the Court on the Review Petition:-
5. This Court vide order dated 08.10.2025 disposed the CRP by
observing that the finding of the Family Court regarding the nonbinding nature of the judgments and orders passed by a Foreign
2025:APHC:45924
//3//
Court referred to in the petition would suffice for determining the
main dispute in FCOP.No.110 of 2018.
6. Insofar as, the exclusive jurisdiction of Texas Court is concerned,
the Trial Court has rightly observed that the finding of Texas
Family Court on the point of jurisdiction was not accepted. The
said observation and finding of the trial Court that the Foreign
Courts cannot exclude the jurisdiction for entertaining the
custody petitions by the Indian Courts. To that extent the
observation of the Family Court is well considered. This was
rightly observed by the learned Family Court Judge.
7. Insofar as determining on whether the orders passed by the
Foreign Court are not on merits is concerned, the contention of
the petitioner that the petitioner had contested the matters before
the Foreign Court only to the extent of jurisdiction and not on
merits of the case is concerned would evidently indicate that the
orders passed by the Foreign Court recorded the nonparticipation of the petitioner on merits in the proceedings before
the District Court, 247th Judicial District, Harris County, Texas.
8. The other points i.e., (d)the result of proceedings are opposed to
natural justice;(e)the result of fraud and ;(f)founded on a breach
of laws in force in India, as claimed by the petitioner, are
concerned, the Family Court cannot determine such issues in the
2025:APHC:45924
//4//
absence of the relevant material. The scope of the Family Court
is to decide the FCOP.No.110 of 2018 on merits. That apart the
order of the learned Family Court Judge is well considered.
9. On the facts of this case, it is made clear that the respondent
cannot give undue credence to the orders passed by the Foreign
Court and rely upon them before any statutory authority in India
for any purpose. When the family Court, Tirupati on the facts of
the case has observed that the judgments passed by the Foreign
Court are not binding on the Family Court, Tirupati.
10. On these considerations, the review petition is disposed off by
incorporating paras ‘6 to 9’ in the order passed in CRP.No.1372
of 2025 after para 9. Registry is directed to make necessary
corrections and issue neat copy.
___________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Date:31.10.2025
KGM
2025:APHC:45924
//5//
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
IA.No.3 of 2025 (Review Petition)
in
CRP.No.1372 of 2025
Dated 31.10.2025
KGM
2025:APHC:45924