- (1.) These two appeals are connected and can be disposed of together. CA. No. 5517 of 1997 arises out of orders dated 10-6-1997 and 4-7-1997 passed by the High Court in appeal against M.J. Petition No. 985 of 1985 filed by the appellant in the Civil Court which was transferred to the Family Court. CA. No. 5518 of 1997 arises out of orders passed on same dates by the High Court in Family Court Appeal No. 99 of 1995 (arising out of order dated 1-12-1995 in Custody Case No. 9 of 1993 filed by the respondent). The orders dated 10-6-1997 are orders dismissing the matters for default and orders dated 4-7-1997 are those refusing to restore the matters and vacating the ad interim order. In the Family Court Appeal No. 99 of 1995 while passing orders on 4-7-1997, it was also stated by the High Court that the appellant had no case on merits .
(2.) The facts leading to the appeals are as follows : The respondent Mr. Madhav Unde married the appellant (who was then in U.S.A.) on 11-6-1982 at Omaha, State of Nebraska in the U.S.A. On 19-6-1982, a separate marriage ceremony as per Hindu rituals was performed. It appears that the respondent had earlier married one Bhagyawanti at Nagpur on 20-4-1967. The respondent later left for U.S.A. and obtained an ex parte divorce order against Bhagyawanti in the trial Court at Oakland in the State of Michigan on 25-10-1977 allegedly by way of misrepresentation. (Later Bhagyawanti moved that Court for vacation of that order.) The said Bhagyawanti also filed Petition No. 101 of 1981 in the District Court, Nagpur and claimed that the decree obtained by the respondent in U.S.A. was void and based on misrepresentation of facts and she claimed for divorce, maintenance and other reliefs. She succeeded in that case and a fresh divorce decree was passed by the Nagpur Court on 11-6-1984 relying upon (Satya v. Teja Singh)1, 1975(1) S.C.C. 120. That would mean that the Indian Court held that the U.S. divorce decree dated 25-10-1977 was not binding on the said Bhagyawanti.
(3.) The appellant lived with the respondent in U.S.A. for 10 months after her marriage on 11-6-1982. On 15-3-1983, a male child was born to them in U.S.A. and was named Abhijeet. Due to certain compelling circumstances, the mother (appellant) and the child left the respondent on 20-4-1983 when the child was 35 days', old. Thereafter, the respondent-husband had no occasion to live with his wife and the child so far. They have been involved in unfortunate litigations both civil and criminal both in U.S.A. and in India for the last 14 years. The respondent is continuing to live in U.S.A. while the appellant and her son have been living in India. The boy is now studying in 8th standard in a school at Pune.;