Why Japan is not a reciprocating territory -- and what that means
Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 allows a judgment from a declared “reciprocating
territory” to be filed for direct execution in an Indian district court, almost as if it were a
decree of an Indian court, without the need for a fresh civil suit. The declared list is a specific,
limited group of mostly Commonwealth-linked jurisdictions -- the United Kingdom, Singapore, Malaysia,
Hong Kong SAR, Bangladesh, Trinidad and Tobago, New Zealand, the Cook Islands and Niue, Papua New Guinea,
Fiji, Aden, and the UAE -- and Japan is not among them, the same position as most other major
non-Commonwealth economies this platform covers, including the USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, and the
EU member states generally. This means a Japan-based decree-holder must bring a fresh civil suit under
Section 13 of the CPC in the appropriate Indian court, using the Japanese judgment as conclusive evidence
on the matters it decided, subject to Section 13's own exceptions (for example, that the judgment was not
obtained by fraud, was given by a court of competent jurisdiction, and does not sustain a claim founded
on a breach of Indian law).
What the Section 13 route involves in practice
An NRI in Japan seeking to enforce a Japanese divorce decree, maintenance order, or civil judgment in
India should expect a genuine fresh proceeding -- filing a suit, serving notice, and having the Indian
court examine the Japanese judgment against Section 13's conditions -- rather than a summary execution
filing. This generally takes materially longer and costs more than the direct-execution route available
for a reciprocating-territory judgment, so NRIs in Japan with a pending or anticipated cross-border family
law matter should plan timelines accordingly and engage Indian counsel early.
Custody and maintenance considerations for NRI families
As with other countries, India's non-membership of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction remains a real gap for NRI families in Japan facing a cross-border custody
dispute -- a Japanese custody or return order is not automatically enforceable in India through any
summary mechanism, and pursuing custody or return of a child typically requires separate proceedings in
the relevant jurisdiction. Notably, Japan itself only acceded to the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention in
2014, and separately maintains sole-custody-only family law (joint custody after divorce is not
available under Japanese law as of this writing), both relevant background for an NRI family navigating a
Japan-side custody dispute. Maintenance claims by an NRI spouse or child can generally still be pursued
under ordinary Indian family law where the respondent or assets are within Indian jurisdiction.
Common mistakes NRIs in Japan make in family law matters:
- Assuming a Japanese judgment can be directly executed in India the way a reciprocating-territory
judgment can -- it cannot; a fresh Section 13 civil suit is required.
- Underestimating the time and cost of the Section 13 route compared to direct execution, and not
planning accordingly for a time-sensitive matter.
- Not accounting for Japan's own sole-custody-only family law framework when navigating a
Japan-side custody dispute alongside any Indian proceedings.
