I would like to thank you Prof. Dr. Debashree Chakroborty for guiding me in this case study. It is the case study of Harmeeta Singh vs Rajat Taneja that is related to divorce under Hindu Marraige Act 1955.In this case study many things include like the issues, legal provisions judgment etc. I would like to thanks Prof. Dr. Debashree Chakroborty for helping me in this case study.

1. Assignment submitted for the partial fulfillment of the degree BBA-LLB Hons of
3rd semester.
Under supervision of
“Debashree Chakraborty”
Dept. of Law, TIU
Harmeeta Singh vs Rajat Taneja 102 (2003) DLT 82

2. Case Study on:-
“Harmeeta Singh vs Rajat Taneja 102 (2003) DLT 82”
By
“Sujoy Paul”
Student ID- 201001501002
Dept = BBA-LLB 3rd sem

3. -:Contents:-
• Citation of the Case
• Date of the Judgment
• Judges Name
• Parties Name
• Facts of the Case:
• List of the legal
provision
• Issue before the court
• Jurisdiction of the Court
• Argument on behalf of plaintiff
• Argument on behalf of defendant
• Judgment
• Reasoning
• Opinion

4. -:Harmeeta Singh vs Rajat Taneja 102 (2003) DLT 82:-
Citation of the Case: 2003 IIAD Delhi 14, 102 (2003) DLT 822, I (2003) DMC
443, 2003 (67) DRJ 58.
Date of the Judgment: 23.01.2003.
Judges Name: Justice Vikramjit Sen.
Parties Name: Plaintiff (Wife) Harmeeta Singh and the Defendant (Husband)
Rajat Taneja.

5. -:Fact of the case:-
 Plaintiff and defendant married in New Delhi.
 The spouses departed for the United States of America.
 The Plaintiff has alleged that she was compelled to leave matrimonial home.
 Her husband had initiated proceedings for obtaining a Decree of Divorce in
America.
 Lacking necessary financial resources, and other support.
 She was compelled to return to India.

6. List of the legal provision:
• Section 18 in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
• Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
• Section 22 of the Code of civil procedure, 1908.
• Section 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
• Section 24 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
• Article 228 of Constitution of the of India 1950.
Issue before the court:
 Whether or not the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance was applicable to the
Plaintiff?
 Whether the decree of divorce passed by U.S.A was applicable in India or
not?

7. Jurisdiction of the Court:
High court has the jurisdiction
“Under article 228 of Indian Constitution 1950 along with section 13,22,23,24 of
the Code of Civil Procedure 1908”
-For transfer the case-

8. Argument on behalf of plaintiff:
 Harmeeta Singh got married to the defendant Rajat Taneja according to Sikh rites,falls under The
Hindu Marriage Act , 1955 and Hindu Adoption And Maintenance Act ,1956 .
 The defendant pushed the plaintiff to leave her matrimonial home.
 Demand maintenance Under Section 18 of The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
 Doesn't possess the spouse visa and do not have that financial strength .
Argument on behalf of defendant:
 Left for USA on 27.03.2002 just after 3 days of marriage.
 Lived their conjugal life in America for at least 5 months.
 Initiate proceedings in the courts of the United States.

9. Judgment:
The divorce petition can not be entertain by court according to
section 14 of HMA 1955.
Restrained the defendant (husband) from continuing with the
proceedings in the United States of America.

10. Reasoning:
• In Vikas Agrawal v. Anubha, Y. Narasimha Rao and Others v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and Anr , Satya v.
Teja, Veena Kalia v. Dr. Jatinder Nath Kalia and Anr.
• In above cases the court held that a foreign decree did not take into consideration.
• Courts in India would undoubtedly have jurisdiction over the disputes.
• The plaintiff had lots of financial problem .
• Having not received the Spouse Visa plaintiff may not even is in a position to enter the United
States of America.
• Defendant had a stable financial position, could proceed the case in USA.
• So defendant should have to present in courts in India.

11. Opinion:-
 The Delhi high court entertained this application in such a great way and the Justice Vikramjit Sen did
not take so much time for this order he had understood the whole matter and he thought really rationally
after that he dealt with many precedents that helps to the reader in what ground he gave the order
regarding this dispute. This order helped the plaintiff to proceed the further case in India.