NP v KRP

Recognition of an overseas divorce may be refused on public-policy grounds only where recognition would offend substantial justice. The jurisdiction is narrow and must be applied stringently. Lack of notice or participation does not itself justify refusal where the foreign law validly permits divorce without those features. A customary divorce may constitute “other proceedings” where at least one party wishes to divorce, family or community members endorse and participate in the process, and the foreign legal system recognises the custom. Delay, participation, comity, the parties’ connection with the foreign forum, and the practical consequences of refusing recognition are relevant to the public-policy assessment.

The applicant wife sought a declaration under section 55 of the Family Law Act 1986 that a panchayat divorce registered in Gujarat, India, was not entitled to recognition in England. She alleged deception, pressure and lack of informed participation. The court found that the divorce was valid under Indian law, had been registered through a customary community process, and that the wife had participated in obtaining the deed with knowledge of its intended effect. The central questions were whether the divorce was obtained by “other proceedings” and whether recognition would be manifestly contrary to public policy under section 51(3).

1. Application dismissed. The Indian divorce was recognised.
2. The court held that the divorce was obtained by “other proceedings” within Part II of the Family Law Act 1986. A panchayat divorce involved a wish by at least one party to divorce, endorsement and involvement by family or community members, and was not merely a unilateral act or private agreement. Registration could evidence and confirm status. The registrar’s explanation of the process and the community’s presence made the registration more than an administrative record.
3. Under sections 45 and 51(3), lack of notice or opportunity to participate did not provide a ground for refusing recognition where the foreign law did not require notice or participation. The wife had in any event participated in the process and knew what the deed was intended to achieve.
4. The public-policy test was whether recognition would offend substantial justice. The test was narrow and required stringent application. The wife failed to establish the alleged fraud, deception, lack of knowledge or specific duress. Her assent might have been reluctant, but the evidence did not establish that her will had been overborne.
5. India was not the most natural forum, but it was not wholly unnatural because it was the forum of the parties’ origins and community. The court also considered the availability of financial relief under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, the wife’s delay, the parties’ participation, comity, and the disruption that non-recognition might cause to the husband’s subsequent marriage and family life. Those matters did not make recognition manifestly contrary to public policy.

First-instance application in the High Court (Family Division). No appellate decision is stated in the judgment.