Mangrulkar v Mangrulkar
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 19 January 1939 |
| Date | 19 January 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 26. |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - First Division) |
1ST DIVISION.
Ld. Jamieson.
JurisdictionHusband and WifeAction of divorce by wifeMarriage entered into in Scotland by Scots woman and IndianHusband domiciled and resident in India at date of action Averment that Indian Courts would not recognise validity of marriageJurisdiction ex necessitate.
In an action of divorce on the ground of desertion brought by a wife in 1938, the pursuer averred that she was married to the defender in Edinburgh in 1930; that she was a Scotswoman and had, ever since the marriage, resided in Edinburgh; that the defender was a Hindu, and that he had always been domiciled in India; that he had returned to India in 1933, since which date he had been in desertion of the pursuer; that, the defender being a Hindu of the Brahmin caste, his marriage to the pursuer was, according to Hindu law, null and void, and that the Indian Courts would not recognise the marriage as valid. She further averred that the marriage was valid in Scotland, and that the Scots Court was the only Court to which she could apply for redress.
Held that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the action, in respect that the husband's domicile was admittedly Indian, and that the domicile of the pursuer, who asserted the existence of the marriage, necessarily followed that of her husband.
Opinion, per the Lord President, that the Scots Courts did not recognise jurisdiction ex necessitate.
Opinion on this point reserved, per Lord Moncrieff.
Stathatos v. StathatosELR, [1913] P. 46, and de Montaigu v. de MontaiguELR, [1913] P. 154, commented on.
Mrs Isa Jane Watson Or Mangrulkar, residing at 16 Leven Terrace, Edinburgh, brought an action of divorce on the ground of desertion against her husband, Moreshwar Yadas Mangrulkar, assistant pathologist, Imperial Institute of Veterinary Research, Ruman, Muktesar, India.
The pursuer made the following averments:(Cond. 1) "The pursuer and the defender were married in Edinburgh on 27th November 1930 by declaration before witnesses. An extract of the entry of the marriage in the Marriage Register is produced. The pursuer is a Scotswoman by birth, and at the time of the marriage she was residing, and ever since has resided, in Edinburgh. She is a Christian. The defender is a veterinary surgeon holding an official position in India. He was born in India, a Hindu of the Brahmin caste. Since birth he has remained and still remains in that caste, and has been throughout of Indian domicile. There are no children of the marriage." (Cond. 2) "After the said marriage the parties lived as previously in the house of the pursuer's mother, the defender before the marriage having been a boarder in the said house and thereafter continuing to live there in that relation. The said house was at 16 Leven Terrace, Edinburgh. The defender was anxious that nobody should know of the marriage, and it was kept secret for a time, but the pursuer's mother was informed of it in or about February 1931." (Cond. 3) "On or about 25th April 1933 the defender left the pursuer and returned to India, from where he has not since come back to this country. When he left, he undertook to provide for the pursuer's needs, and to send for her in order that they might take up residence together in India. While he undertook to bring her out as soon as possible, he enjoined on her to make no preparations for going out to him until he actually invited her to come. In point of fact, although in a position financially to have sent for her almost at once, he has never invited her to join him in India, nor, so far as the pursuer is aware, did he ever take any steps to provide a home for her. He sent her no money, although in November 1933 she was ill and in great straits and in repeated letters requested him to send her...
To continue reading
Request your trial