Why a Nepal decree needs a fresh Indian suit, not direct execution
Section 44A of India's Code of Civil Procedure allows judgments from a defined list of gazette-
notified “reciprocating territories” to be executed directly in Indian courts, without a
fresh lawsuit. This platform cross-checked two independent legal-commentary sources listing the same
twelve reciprocating territories -- the United Kingdom, Singapore, Bangladesh, the UAE, Malaysia,
Trinidad and Tobago, New Zealand, the Cook Islands (including Niue) and Trust Territories of Western
Samoa, Hong Kong, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, and Aden -- and Nepal is not among them; both sources
explicitly name Nepal as a non-reciprocating example alongside the United States. This platform did not
independently verify this list against a live e-Gazette notification, so readers should treat it as
high-confidence but subject to a current-notification check, as one of the underlying sources itself
notes the list can change.
The practical route: Section 13 CPC, not Section 44A
Because Nepal is not a reciprocating territory, a Nepal-issued divorce, custody, or maintenance decree
cannot be directly executed in an Indian court through Section 44A's summary procedure. Instead, the
person seeking to rely on it needs to file a fresh civil suit in an Indian court under Section 13 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, using the Nepal decree as evidence. Section 13 separately tests the foreign
judgment against its own listed exceptions (for example, whether the foreign court had proper
jurisdiction, whether the proceedings were conducted fairly, and whether the decision was obtained
through fraud), and commentary sources note a bar on such suits after three years from the date of the
foreign judgment -- readers facing this situation should consult a family-law practitioner promptly
rather than delaying.
Nepal's own family-law framework, and the open border's limited relevance here
Nepal's marriage and divorce provisions sit within the same National Civil Code, 2074 (2017)
discussed in this platform's Inheritance guide for Nepal -- a single, secular civil code rather than
religion-specific personal laws. The 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship's open-border privileges (see
this platform's Immigration guide for Nepal) govern movement, residence, and work, not the recognition
of foreign family-law judgments -- readers should not assume the open border simplifies cross-border
divorce or custody enforcement in any way; the Section 44A/Section 13 analysis above applies regardless
of the Treaty.
Common mistakes people connected to Nepal make with family-law questions:
- Assuming a Nepal divorce decree can be directly enforced in India via Section 44A -- it cannot;
Nepal is not a notified reciprocating territory.
- Assuming the 1950 Treaty's open border has any bearing on cross-border family-law enforcement --
it does not; the Treaty covers movement and residence, not judgment recognition.
- Delaying a Section 13 suit beyond the commentary-noted three-year window from the date of the
foreign judgment.
