Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Monisha Mahtani v Vivek Hariram Mahtani

[2023] EWHC 2988 (Fam)
A husband got a divorce in Indonesia without telling his wife, who lived in London. The English court said the Indonesian divorce wasn't valid because the husband cheated, and let the wife continue her case in England.

Key Facts

  • Monisha Mahtani (Applicant) applied for non-recognition of an Indonesian divorce obtained by Vivek Hariram Mahtani (Respondent) in 2017.
  • The Respondent did not participate in the English proceedings.
  • The Applicant argued the Respondent obtained the Indonesian divorce fraudulently by misrepresenting his knowledge of her whereabouts in London.
  • The Respondent knew the Applicant's London address and had communicated with her after she left Indonesia in 2016.
  • The Indonesian court lacked jurisdiction because it was misled about the Applicant's residence.
  • The Respondent subsequently obtained a financial remedies order in Indonesia, leaving the Applicant with virtually no claim to his assets.

Legal Principles

Section 51(3) of the Family Law Act 1986 allows refusal of recognition of an overseas divorce if obtained without reasonable steps to notify the other party or if recognition would be manifestly contrary to public policy.

Family Law Act 1986, Section 51(3)

The court must consider whether reasonable steps were taken to notify the respondent spouse of the divorce proceedings, judged by English standards, regardless of whether the respondent actually received notice.

Duhur-Johnson v Duhur-Johnson [2005] 2 FLR 1042

The court has a wide discretion whether to recognise an overseas divorce, even if unreasonable steps were taken to notify the respondent.

Duhur-Johnson v Duhur-Johnson [2005] 2 FLR 1042

Comity dictates that overseas court decisions should be respected, but this does not require recognition of a decree obtained through dishonesty or where due process was not followed.

Kendall v Kendall [1977] 3 WLR 251, Liaw v Lee [2016] 1 FLR 533

Outcomes

The court refused to recognise the Indonesian divorce.

The Respondent deliberately misled the Indonesian court about the Applicant's whereabouts, preventing proper notification and depriving her of participation in the proceedings. This was a breach of due process and constituted dishonesty, outweighing the arguments in favour of recognition. The court's discretion was exercised to prevent rewarding such conduct.

The stay on the divorce and financial remedies proceedings in England was lifted.

The refusal of recognition means the English marriage remains subsisting, allowing the Applicant to proceed with her financial claims.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.