Case Name: Blinston Savio Fernandes v. Leandra Marie Fernandes
Petition No.: Writ Petition No. 265 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-GOA:954-DB
Date of Judgment: 29 April 2026
Coram: Honourable Mr Justice Valmiki Menezes and Honourable Mr Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar

INTRODUCTION

The core issue in this writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa was whether a decree passed by a competent civil court within India could be treated as a “foreign judgment” under the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure, 1939, thereby requiring confirmation by the High Court. The Court addressed the administrative misinterpretation by Registrars in Goa and clarified that the Indian civil court decrees are binding in Goa.

FACTS

The petitioner, Blinston Savio Fernandes, had solemnised his marriage with the respondent in 2006, which was duly registered in Goa. Subsequently, due to marital discord, he initiated divorce proceedings before the Family Court in Bangalore under the Indian Divorce Act, 1861. The dispute was amicably resolved through mediation, culminating in a decree dissolving the marriage.

Following the decree, the petitioner approached the Civil Registrar in Goa seeking cancellation of the marriage certificate. However, the Registrar refused to act upon the decree on the ground that it was passed by a court outside Goa and thus constituted a “foreign judgment” under Articles 1100–1102 of the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure, 1939. The Registrar insisted that such a decree required prior review and confirmation by the High Court. The aggrieved petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus.

ISSUES

1. Whether a decree passed by a competent civil court in India can be construed as a “foreign judgment” under the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure, 1939?

2. Whether such a decree requires review and confirmation by the High Court under Articles 1101 and 1102 of the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure, 1939?

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

The petitioner contended that the decree passed by the Family Court in Bangalore was a valid decree of a competent Indian court and binding throughout India. It was argued that treating such a decree as “foreign” was legally untenable, especially after the extension of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to Goa. The insistence on review under Portuguese procedural law was arbitrary.

The Registrar justified the refusal by invoking Articles 1100–1102 of the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure, 1939, arguing that since the decree originated outside Goa, it fell under “foreign judgment”. Consequently, it required validation by the High Court before it could be acted upon.

JUDICIAL REASONING

The High Court of Bombay at Goa held that a decree passed by a civil court within India cannot be treated as a foreign judgment. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jose Paulo Coutinho v. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira (2019) 20 SCC 85, it reiterated that the Portuguese Civil Code, though of foreign origin, has been incorporated into Indian law post-liberation and is no longer “foreign”. Consequently, the Portuguese procedural code must also be treated as Indian law. Therefore, the expression “foreign” in these codes refers only to jurisdictions outside India, not to other Indian states. 

The Court held that Articles 1100–1102 of the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure apply exclusively to judgments originating outside India. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was made applicable to the State of Goa with effect from 15.06.1966. Thereafter, the CPC governs procedural aspects, including the definition of “foreign judgment”. Under Sections 2(5) and 2(6) CPC, a foreign court is one situated outside India. Therefore, Indian decrees fall outside the scope of these Portuguese provisions and do not require confirmation by the High Court.

It emphasised that decrees passed by competent Indian courts are binding on all authorities within India, including Registrars in Goa. The refusal to act upon such decrees was characterised as arbitrary and contrary to law.

CONCLUSION

The High Court, therefore, allowed the writ petition and quashed the Registrar’s objection. It directed the Registrar to cancel the petitioner’s marriage certificate within one week and issued general directions prohibiting Registrars across Goa from treating Indian court decrees as foreign judgments. The judgment finally establishes that, post-liberation and integration, Goa cannot treat the rest of India as a foreign jurisdiction, and that Indian civil court decrees are fully enforceable within the state without additional procedural hurdles.