SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I
Whether the marriage of Neha and Ramant is valid as per the provisions of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon‟ ble Court that the marriage between Sunita and Mahesh is
valid under of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 applies to Hindus by religion in any of its forms and
Hindus within the extended meaning i.e. Buddhist, Jains or Sikh and, in fact, applies to all such
persons domiciled in the country who are not Muslims, Christians, Parsi or Jew, unless it is proved
that such persons are not governed by the Act under any custom or usage. The Act also applies to
Hindus who domiciled out side the territory of India.(1)

ISSUE II
Whether non-contest by wife of divorce petition filed by the husband in a

Foreign Court implied that she had conceded to the jurisdiction of the Foreign Court?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon‟ ble Court that she had no means to go to New York as
Mahesh was only working onsite. After coming out of shock without filing petitions she wrote a
letter to the New York court that there is no jurisdiction to grant divorce decree as the grounds of
decree was not under the Hindu Marriage act,1955 and the jurisdiction mentioned in section 19
Hindu Marriage Act,1955 where the court don‟ t fall under the jurisdiction of the court.

ISSUE III
Whether the principle of Res-Judicata under Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
is applicable to the proceedings being initiated in District Court, Jalandar?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon‟ ble Court that a foreign court is defined as a court
situated out side India and not established or continued by the authority of the Central
Government. And a foreign judgement means a judgement of foreign court. In other words, a
foreign judgement means adjudication by foreign court upon a matter before it. A Forigen
Judgement
can be accepted only when the specified country is reciprocating territory of India under Section
44A of CPC.