Case Update (15 Nov 2023): In re Marriage of VS and VK; Lex Loci Contractus; California appellate court affirms invalidity of Indian marriage under Hindu Marriage Act
The parties, both born in India, met in 2009 in Illinois, where both were residing at the time. On December 15, 2010, they traveled to India and participated in a Hindu marriage ceremony, referred to in the court’s opinion as “the Phera.” On July 5, 2013, they participated in a civil marriage ceremony in Chicago. In July 2019, the Wife petitioned for dissolution of the marriage in Santa Clara County, California, stating that the date of marriage was the 2010 date. Despite his initial response acknowledging that date of marriage, Husband later argued that the date of marriage was the 2013 civil ceremony.
While litigating the validity of their 2010 marriage, the parties called certain experts who are licensed attorneys in India, and cited to certain Indian Supreme Court cases. The issue was the application of the Hindu Marriage Act, whether their Phera satisfied the requirements in that Act, and whether the Act applies to only Indian domiciliaries. Ancillary to that is whether the spouses were actually domiciled in India, if the Hindu Marriage Act only applies to domiciliaries.
Husband’s Indian law expert testified that the salient law, the Hindu Marriage Act, only applies to Hindus domiciled in India, does not apply where only one spouse is residing in India, and would require registration under the separate Special Marriage Act unless both parties were domiciled in India. Wife’s Indian law expert opined that a non-domiciled person submits to the Hindu Marriage Act by participating in the ceremony, and would need to do an overt act to rebut the applicability of the act.
The Husband testified that he had been assured prior to the Phera by an Indian lawyer that it was not legally valid, he twice refused to register the marriage, he filed all tax returns until 2013 as “single”, and that he established pre-conditions to being legally married (specifically, executing a prenuptial agreement and having his psychologist Wife stop medicating him). Furthermore, the Wife renewed her visitor visa to the U.S., rather than apply for a spousal visa. The Wife testified that she received a gift that is traditionally given to married women in India, she spent her wedding night with her Husband in 2010, and that she never completed or reviewed the tax returns filed by the parties. However, she admitted to renewing her visitor visa, and renewing her Indian passport in 2011 and leaving the spouse’s name blank.
The trial court concluded that the parties became legally married in Chicago in 2013. It accepted the Husband’s Indian law expert that because he lacked domicile in India, their Phera in 2010 could not meet the legal requirements of where it was contracted. Even though the Husband’s original responsive pleading to the divorce request admitted the 2010 marriage date, and he didn’t seek to amend that pleading until almost 2 years later, he could not judicially admit the date to be 2010, as it is a legal conclusion, and not a fact. Finally, the trial court concluded that the Wife was not a putative spouse between 2010 and 2013, as she could not have had a good faith belief in being legally married. The appellate court affirmed.
