Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Rahul Raina vs Nadejda Raina on 8 July, 2026
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2017
Sr. No. 117
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
ATJAMMU
FAO (MAT) No.01/2025
Pronounced on : 08.07.2026
Uploaded on : 10.07.2026
Rahul Raina, Aged 48 years, .....Petitioner(s)
S/o Sh. Surinder Kumar Raina,
R/o H. No. 668, Sector-E,
Sainik Colony, Jammu.
Through :- Mr. Vikram Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. M Nadeem Bhat, Advocate &
Mr. S Sanpreet Singh, Advocate.
v/s
Nadejda Raina, .....Respondent(s)
W/o Sh. Rahul Raina,
R/o H. No. 486/1, Sector-C,
Sainik Colony, Jammu.
Through :- Mr. Ravinder Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Aditya Vikram Sharma, Advocate &
Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
08.07.2026
1. The parties are embroiled in a matrimonial dispute. Although their
marriage was solemnized at Sainik Colony, Jammu, they shifted to
England after the marriage, where both of them were employed. Two
minor children were born out of the wedlock. Subsequently, the parties
separated pursuant to a consent decree dated 17.01.2022 passed by the
High Court of Justice, Family Division, Strand, London”hereafter the
foreign court”. In terms of the said decree, both parties were required to
discharge certain obligations concerning maintenance, custody, and the
welfare of the minor children.
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2017
2. It is stated that after the passing of the aforesaid decree, the respondent-
wife returned to India. She thereafter approached the foreign court,
seeking enforcement of the undertakings and directions contained in the
consent decree. However, the said Court, while rejecting her
application, observed that she had neither registered the decree in India
nor initiated any independent proceedings before the competent courts
in India. It also held that since the minor children were residing in
India, it would not be appropriate for the Courts of England and Wales
to pass any further orders concerning their custody or welfare. The
parties were accordingly left at liberty to pursue their remedies before
the competent courts in India.
3. The case of the petitioner is that, as the respondent failed to abide by
the terms and conditions of the aforesaid consent decree, he instituted
an execution petition under Section 44-A of the Code of Civil
Procedure before the District Family Court, Jammu. The said execution
petition was subsequently transferred to the Court of the learned
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jammu.
4. Prior to the institution of the execution proceedings, the respondent-
wife had already initiated proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance. In those proceedings, the
petitioner had filed an application seeking custody of the minor
children along with visitation rights. However, the petitioner
subsequently withdrew the said application on the premise that the
decree passed by foreign court of London was capable of execution in
India. The learned Trial Court, however, dismissed the execution
petition on the grounds that the requirements of Section 44-A of the
Page 2 of 10 FAO (MAT) No. 1/2025
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2017
Code of Civil Procedure had not been complied with and that the
execution petition was barred by limitation, having not been filed
within a period of three years. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has
challenged the said order, contending that no opportunity was afforded
to him to rectify the defects in the execution petition, thereby violating
the principles of natural justice.
5. It is further contended by the petitioner that immediately upon
returning to India, the respondent deliberately failed to comply with the
judgment and decree passed by the foreign Court. According to the
petitioner, the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that a foreign
decree, if otherwise executable in India, is enforceable within the same
period of limitation as would have been available had its execution
been sought before the Court which passed the decree.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that,
although the learned Trial Court placed reliance upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bank of Baroda v. Kotak Mahindra
Bank Ltd., reported in 2020 AIR (SC) 1474, while holding that the
foreign decree could be enforced only within a period of three years, it
failed to appreciate the ratio of the said judgment in its correct
perspective and consequently fell into error. It was submitted that the
judgment itself clarifies that Section 44-A of the Code of Civil
Procedure does not prescribe any period of limitation for the execution
of a foreign decree. According to the ld.Counsel, Article 136 of the
Limitation Act applies only to decrees passed by courts in India,
whereas the execution of a foreign decree falls within the ambit of
Article 137. It was further argued that, in the present case, the decree
Page 3 of 10 FAO (MAT) No. 1/2025
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2017
was passed by a competent court in London, where the prescribed
period of limitation for its enforcement is six years. Therefore, the
execution petition filed before the Family Court at Jammu was well
within the period of limitation, reckoned from the date of the decree
passed by the London Court. It was contended that had the petitioner
failed to seek execution of the decree within the prescribed period of
six years in the country where it was passed, he would have been
precluded from seeking its enforcement in India. However, since the
decree was passed in the year 2022 and the execution proceedings were
initiated well within the said period, the petition could not have been
held to be barred by limitation.
7. Per contra, ld. Sr.Counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that
the Trial Court had rightly appreciated the controversy involved and
committed no error in dismissing the execution petition. It was
submitted that the petitioner had failed to comply with the mandatory
requirements of Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. In
particular, the petitioner did not produce the certificate contemplated
under sub-section (2) of Section 44-A certifying the extent to which the
decree had been satisfied or adjusted. It was further contended that the
execution petition also did not conform to the requirements of Order
XXI Rule 11(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it lacked the
necessary particulars mandated thereunder. In view of these procedural
deficiencies, it was argued that the learned Trial Court was fully
justified in dismissing the execution petition.
8. Have heard ld. counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
Page 4 of 10 FAO (MAT) No. 1/2025
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2017
9. In the aforesaid (supra), adecree was passed by a London Court which
was sought to be executed in India after fourteen years after the decree
was passed by said court by taking recourse of 44-A read with Order
XXI Rule 3 of the CPC. The Trial Court having found that the decree is
time barred held that in terms of Article 136 of the Limitation Act,
which will apply to the execution petition, such should have been filed
within 12 years after the decree had been passed by the London Court,
which view was upheld by the High Court. The matter was before the
Apex Court, there it raised the following questions,
(i) Does Section 44A merely provide for manner of execution
of foreign decrees or does it also indicate the period of
limitation for filing execution proceedings for the same?
(ii) What is the period of limitation for executing a decree
passed by a foreign court (from a reciprocating country) in
India?
(iii) From which date the period of limitation will run in
relation to a foreign decree (passed in a reciprocating
country) sought to be executed in India?
10. While dealing with Question No.1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that the expression “cause country” refers to the country in
which the decree was passed, whereas the expression “forum
country” denotes the country in which such decree is sought to be
executed. In the present case, England is the cause country and India is
the forum country. Upon an elaborate consideration of the issue, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 44-A of the Code of Civil
Procedure merely enables a District Court in India to execute a decree
passed by a superior court of a reciprocating territory and mandates that
such decree shall be executed in the same manner as a decree passed by
an Indian court. However, the provision neither prescribes nor indicates
Page 5 of 10 FAO (MAT) No. 1/2025
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2017
the period of limitation within which an execution petition for
enforcement of a foreign decree is required to be filed.
11. While answering Question No.2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed
in paragraphs 33, 34 and 35 as under:-
“33. The view worldwide appears to be that the limitation law of
the cause country should be applied even in the forum country.
Furthermore, we are of the view that in those cases where the
remedy stands extinguished in the cause country it virtually
extinguishes the right of the decree-holder to execute the decree
and creates a corresponding right in the judgment debtor to
challenge the execution of the decree. These are substantive rights
and cannot be termed to be procedural. As India becomes a
global player in the international business arena, it cannot be one
of the few countries where the law of limitation is considered
entirely procedural.
34. We have already clearly indicated that if the law of a forum
country is silent with regard to the limitation prescribed for
execution of a foreign decree, then the limitation of the cause
country would apply.
35. We answer Question No. 2 by holding that the limitation
period for executing a decree passed by a foreign court (from a
reciprocating country) in India will be the limitation prescribed in
the reciprocating foreign country. Obviously, this will be subject
to the decree being executable in terms of Section 13 of the CPC.”
12. In answering Question No.3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that,
ordinarily, the period of limitation commences from the date on which
the decree is passed in the cause country, and not from the date on
which its execution is sought in the forum country. It was further held
that if the decree-holder does not initiate execution proceedings in the
cause country within the period of limitation prescribed therein, he
cannot subsequently approach the forum country and contend that a
fresh cause of action has arisen or that the limitation applicable in the
forum country should govern the execution proceedings.
Page 6 of 10 FAO (MAT) No. 1/2025
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2017
13. There is no dispute that the decree sought to be executed is a consent
decree dated 17.01.2022 passed by the High Court of Justice, Family
Division, Strand, London. It is equally undisputed that under the law
applicable in England, such decree remains executable for a period of
six years. The law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bank of
Baroda v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. leaves no manner of doubt that
Section 44-A CPC merely prescribes the mode of execution of a foreign
decree and does not itself prescribe any period of limitation. Ordinarily,
where no execution proceedings have been initiated in the cause
country, the limitation governing execution in the cause country applies
and begins to run from the date of the decree. Only where execution
proceedings have first been pursued in the cause country would Article
137 become relevant, requiring the decree-holder to approach the
Indian court within three years of the conclusion of such proceedings.
Admittedly, no execution proceedings were instituted in England.
Consequently, the petitioner was entitled to invoke Section 44-A CPC
at any time within the six-year limitation prescribed under English law.
Since the execution petition was filed on 22.04.2025, well within six
years of the decree dated 17.01.2022, the finding of the Trial Court that
the petition was barred by limitation is clearly contrary to the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
14. Therein however the apex court carved out an exception by holding that
where the decree-holder has initiated execution proceedings in the
cause country and such proceedings remain pending for some time or
result only in partial satisfaction of the decree, the right to invoke
Page 7 of 10 FAO (MAT) No. 1/2025
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2017
Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure in India would accrue only
upon the conclusion of the execution proceedings in the cause country.
In such circumstances, an application under Section 44-A is required to
be filed before the competent court in India within three years from the
date of finalization of the execution proceedings in the cause country,
as contemplated under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The Court
further clarified that merely applying in the cause country for a certified
copy of the decree or for the certificate contemplated under Section 44-
A would not amount to taking steps in aid of execution. Accordingly,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that, save in the aforesaid
exceptional situation, the period of limitation begins to run from the
date on which the decree is passed by the foreign court of the
reciprocating territory.
15. The Trial Court further dismissed the execution petition on the ground
that it was not accompanied by the certified copy of the decree, the
certificate contemplated under Section 44-A (2) CPC, and the
particulars required under Order XXI Rule 11 CPC. These requirements
are procedural in nature and facilitate the execution of a foreign decree.
They neither determine the substantive right of execution nor affect
limitation. Once the Trial Court noticed such curable defects, the proper
course was to grant the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to remove
them instead of dismissing the petition outright. Denial of such
opportunity has resulted in manifest prejudice and is contrary to the
settled principle that procedural law is intended to advance, and not
defeat, the cause of justice.
Page 8 of 10 FAO (MAT) No. 1/2025
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2017
16. It is also significant that the respondent herself invoked the jurisdiction
of the said foreign court in London for enforcement of the petitioner’s
undertakings under the consent decree. The said Court, however,
declined to entertain the application and expressly observed that, since
both parties and the minor children had shifted to India, any further
proceedings should be pursued before the competent courts in India.
The respondent has thereafter instituted proceedings under Section 125
CrPC before the Indian courts and has obtained maintenance. These
circumstances reinforce the binding character of the consent decree and
negate any suggestion that the petitioner could not seek its enforcement
before the Indian courts. Withdrawal of proceedings under the
Guardians and Wards Act or any other collateral proceedings does not
affect the maintainability of the execution petition.
17. The respondent also contended that the decree may not satisfy the
requirements of Section 13 CPC. At this stage, the contention is
premature. Whether the foreign decree falls within any of the
exceptions enumerated under Section 13 is a matter to be considered by
the Executing Court after a duly constituted execution petition is before
it. All objections available under Section 13 or otherwise shall remain
open for consideration in accordance with law.
18. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside
and the execution petition is restored to its original number. The
Executing Court shall grant the petitioner reasonable time to cure the
procedural defects by filing the certified copy of the decree, the
certificate contemplated under Section 44-A (2) CPC, and by ensuring
compliance with Order XXI Rule 11 CPC, if necessary. Upon such
Page 9 of 10 FAO (MAT) No. 1/2025
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2017
compliance, the Executing Court shall proceed to consider the
execution petition on its own merits in accordance with law. All
objections available to the respondent, including those under Section 13
CPC, are left open. The parties shall appear before the Executing Court
on 30.07.2026.
( Sanjay Parihar )
Judge
JAMMU
08.07.2026
Manan
Whether the order is speaking : Yes
Whether the order is reportable : Yes
Page 10 of 10 FAO (MAT) No. 1/2025
