Any judgment of a foreign court, until such time that it is set aside by an Indian court, is valid in India and can be executed against a person who is subject to Indian law. Your ex wife is at liberty to assail the Singapore divorce in India, but if the divorce has been granted with her participation then it will be difficult for her to impeach it in the court. It is of paramount importance that the ground of divorce in Singapore should be a ground of divorce in India also. A suit for validation of Singapore divorce can be mutually or unilaterally filed in an Indian court.

1) since your wife had participated in divorce proceedings in Singapore and accepted Lumpsum amount in full and final settlement divorce decree would be valid in India

2) you don't need to file any divorce petition In india

The decree of divorce granted on consent in foreign countries is valid in India .

So you have nothing to worry

I differ with the view expressed by certain expert here.

If the divorce decree was granted on consent with your wife then she can not challenge the same in India.

This is not a ground for divorce in India. It was an unwise move to file for divorce in Singapore in the first instance. The divorce is likely to be read down as illegal if a challenge thereto is laid in India. The liberty that she gets is to challenge the divorce in India and also adopt and pursue her other remedies under the Indian law i.e to file for maintenance and launch your prosecution under anti-dowry provisions and domestic violence law. You can file a petition for validation of divorce granted by the court but this can also be opposed by her.

1) unreasonable behaviour of wife would amount to mental cruelty

2) mental cruelty is ground for divorce under section 13(1)(a) of Hindu marriage act

3) since she has claimed large amount of money she cannot assail divorce decree in India

The Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh 2007(4 )SCC511 tried to enumerate instances that constituted mental cruelty. These instances were only illustrated and not exhaustive.

They said:

(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.

(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.

(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.

(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.

(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.

(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.

(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.

(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.

(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.

(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.

(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.

(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.

1. Since she has sought and accepted compensation for agreeing for the said divorce, it can be considered as mutual consent divorce by Indian Courts,

2. However, get the foreign court decree validated by filing an application u/s13 of C.P.C. before an Indian Court.

1. Had it been no-fault divorce attended by her, then it would have been a case similar to mutual consent divorce case accepted by Indian Courts which would have been accepted in India,

2. In your case it is for unreasonable behaviour of your wife which is not an acceptable ground for divorce in Indian. Moreover, hearing of the said case was not attended by your wife. This type of divorce is not acceptable before Indian courts,

3. However, there is something unique in your case. Your wife has sought for and accepted compensation for accepting the said decree of divorce passed by Singapore Court. This can be argued to be a mutual consent divorce case filed before Singapore Court wherein the wife has finally accepted the decree of divorce without contesting and accepted the compensation amount,

4. You file an application for getting the said foreign decree validated by Indian Court as suggested in my earlier post.

Dear Querist

read section 13 of CPC and section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act-1955

13. When foreign judgment not conclusive.- A foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title except,—

(a) where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction;

(b) where it has not been given on the merits of the case;

(c) where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable;

(d) where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice;

(e) where it has been obtained by fraud;

(f) where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India.

Section 13 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

13 Divorce. ?

(1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party?

16 [(i) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or]

16 [(ia) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or]

16 [(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or]

(ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; or

17 [(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.

Explanation .?In this clause,?

(a) the expression ?mental disorder? means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes schizophrenia;

(b) the expression ?psychopathic disorder? means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including sub-normality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party, and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment; or]

(iv) has 18 [***] been suffering from a virulent and incurable form of leprosy; or

(v) has 18 [***] been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form; or

(vi) has renounced the world by entering any religious order; or

(vi) has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of it, had that party been alive; 19 [***] 20 [ Explanation. ?In this sub-section, the expression ?desertion? means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.] 21 [***]

22 [(1A) Either party to a marriage, whether solemnised before or after the commencement of this Act, may also present a petition for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground?

(i) that there has been no resumption of cohabitation as between the parties to the marriage for a period of 22 [one year] or upwards after the passing of a decree for judicial separation in a proceeding to which they were parties; or

(ii) that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period of 22 [one year] or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties.]

(2) A wife may also present a petition for the dissolution of her marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground,?

(i) in the case of any marriage solemnised before the commencement of this Act, that the husband had married again before such commencement or that any other wife of the husband married before such commencement was alive at the time of the solemnisation of the marriage of the petitioner: Provided that in either case the other wife is alive at the time of the presentation of the petition; or

(ii) that the husband has, since the solemnisation of the marriage, been guilty of rape, sodomy or 23 [bestiality; or]

24 [(iii) that in a suit under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), or in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) [or under the corresponding section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898)], a decree or order, as the case may be, has been passed against the husband awarding maintenance to the wife notwithstanding that she was living apart and that since the passing of such decree or order, cohabitation between the parties has not been resumed for one year or upwards; or

25 [(iv) that her marriage (whether consummated or not) was solemnised before she attained the age of fifteen years and she has repudiated the marriage after attaining that age but before attaining the age of eighteen years.]

Explanation. ?This clause applies whether the marriage was solemnised before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976)*.] State Amendment Uttar Pradesh: In its application to Hindus domiciled in Uttar Pradesh and also when either party to the marriage was not at the time of marriage a Hindu domiciled in Uttar Pradesh, in section 13?

(i) in sub-section (1), after clause (i) insert (and shall be deemed always to have been inserted) the following clause, namely:? ?(1a) has persistently or repeatedly treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party; or?, and ?(viii) has not resumed cohabitation after the passing of a decree for judicial separation against that party and?

(a) a period of two years has elapsed since the passing of such decree, or

(b) the case is one of exceptional hardship to the petitioner or of exceptional depravity on the part of other party; or

(ii) for clause (viii) (since repealed in the principal Act) substitute (and shall be deemed to have been substituted) following clause, namely:?

[ Vide Uttar Pradesh Act 13 of 1962, sec. 2 (w.e.f. 7-11-1962)].

(i) Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society, to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of the spouse it is established or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty; Maya Devi v. Jagdish Prasad, AIR 2007 SC 1426.

(ii) Making false allegations against husband of having illicit relationship and extramarital affairs by wife in her written statement constitute mental cruelty of such nature that husband cannot be reasonably asked to live with wife. Husband is entitled to decree of divorce; Sadhana Srivastava v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, AIR 2006 All 7.

(iii) The expression ?Cruelty? as envisaged under section 13 of the Act clearly admits in its ambit and scope such acts which may even cause mental agony to aggrieved party. Intention to be cruel is not an essential element of cruelty as envisaged under section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act. It is sufficient that if the cruelty is of such type that it becomes impossible for spouses to live together; Neelu Kohli v. Naveen Kohli, AIR 2004 All 1.

(iv) The levelling of false allegation by one spouse about the other having alleged illicit relations with different persons outside wedlock amounted to mental cruelty; Jai Dayal v. Shakuntala Devi, AIR 2004 Del 39.

(v) Mental disorder for relief under section 13 (1) (iii) should be of such a degree that it is impossible to lead normal marital life or it is unreasonable to expect a person to put up with a spouse with such condition; B.N. Panduranga Shet v. S.N. Vijayalaxmi, AIR 2003 Karn 357

(vi) Due to the criminal complaint filed by the wife, the husband remained in jail for 63 days and also his father and brother for 20 to 25 days. Therefore, even though the case of cruelty may not have been proved but as the facts emerging from the record clearly indicate that the living of the two as husband and wife would not only be difficult but impossible, the court has no alternative but to grant a decree of divorce; Poonam Gupta v. Ghanshyam Gupta, AIR 2003 All 51.

(vii) Unless the entire genesis of the quarrels in the course of which, one of the spouses holds out a threat to take his or her life is placed before the court, the very fact that some threat in the course of a quarrel is held out, cannot be viewed in isolation or construed as mental cruelty to the other spouse; Nalini Sunder v. G.V. Sundar, AIR 2003 Kar 86.

(viii) A husband cannot ask his wife that he does not like her company, but she can or should stay with other members of the family in matrimonial home. Such an attitude is cruelty in itself on the part of the husband; Yudhishter Singh v. Sarita, AIR 2002 Raj 382.

(ix) Removal of mangalsutra by wife at the instance of her husband does not amount to mental cruelty; S. Hanumantha Rao v. S. Ramani, AIR 1999 SC 1318.

(x) A threat to commit suicide by the wife amounts to infliction of mental cruelty on the husband but it should not be uttered in a domestic tiff; Pushpa Rani v. Vijay Pal Singh, AIR 1994 All 220.

(xi) Solitary instance of cruelty would not constitute cruelty so as to grant a decree for divorce rather the behaviour of the other party has to be persistently and repeatedly treating the other spouse with such cruelty so as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the husband/wife that it will be harmful or injurious for him or her to live with the other party. The expression ?persistently? means continue firmly or obstinately and the expression ?repeatedly? means to say or do over again; Vimlesh v. Prakash Chand Sharma, AIR 1992 All 261.

I am wondering if the divorce granted in Singapore is legally accepted in India, or do I need to do any further formalities in India.

First of all it is a contested divorce, in which participated and contested the ancillary issues and got the remedies as per her own desire.

Therefore it can be construed that the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce passed by Singapore court of law has been accepted by her. This is an indication that there are no issues between you and her over the divorce, therefore this divorce is recognised in Indian law.

you need not apply for fresh divorce again in India.

The divorce granted in Singapore was on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour, do you know under what law and clause this comes under India.

Every country shall be having their own set of grounds or titles for divorce. The one what you mention shall fall under cruelty as per Indian law.

As Ashish mentioned "Your ex wife is at liberty to assail the Singapore divorce in India" may i understand what liberty she gets as she claimed a large amount at Singapore court, which I gave her in Singapore.

I may have to respectfully differ with this learned advocate's opinion. In my opinion it is a clearly contested case and finally the divorce decree was drawn on her consent to the suit by getting the benefits as per the ancillary proceedings. Therefore there can be no reason even if she decides to contest the same in India and it may not be maintainable if you produce the proof o she accepting the alimony amount for giving divorce.

Also to be on the safe side, how can I get this re-certify in India (any domestic court in India or the court under which the marriage got registered in India) or any option to get this on foreign land at Indian high commission or notary or any lawyer.

There is no provision i law in India to get your divorce obtained in a foreign country re-certified. Dont break you head on a non-existent law. Your divorce in Singapore is confirmed and it cannot be contested in India by her by preferring an appeal or by filing a fresh divorce petition here in India (which is not maintainable)

Who wish to take benefit of Indian laws and legal system to avoid facing up to any foreign judicial system.Indian Marriage solemnized in India according to Indian Matrimonial laws then the Indian courts will have territorial jurisdiction to hear & decide matter relating to this marriage & the foreign court's decision may or may not be acceptable in India hence best course is to get this marriage dissolved according to India court's decree of divorce.

A foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title except-

(a) where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction;

(b) where it has not been given on the merits of the case;

(c) where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable;

(d) where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice;

(e) where it has been obtained by fraud;

(f) where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India.

So these six conditions are fulfilled by such foreign judgment/decree of divorce then it will be valid for dissolving such Indian marriage as has been held by the Supreme Court of India in several of its judgments.

If your wife has accepted the authority of Singapore court, it cannot be open to her to later question the authority of the Singapore court.

You can use the foreign court decree and her objections as evidence if further litigation arise in India