Advocate given time to resolve financial dispute with ex-wife who divorced him in absence

Raj Jandoo, who returned from a three-month trip to India in March 2016 to learn that his wife Nerinder Kaur had been granted a divorce in his absence using the “simplified procedure”, sought reduction of the decree, while his former wife, who had since remarried, argued that reduction should be refused.

A judge in the Court of Session decided on an “alternative course” by giving the parties time to resolve their financial dispute out of court.

Simplified divorce

Lord Woolman heard that the pursuer, Scotland’s first Asian advocate, met the defender in late 2010 through an online dating agency and the couple began living together in his flat (PF1) at Miller Crescent in Edinburgh after they became engaged.

In May 2011 the pursuer purchased the flat next door (PF2) with a view to conjoining the two properties, so that there would be sufficient space for family life with the defender’s two teenage children; his own children had left home to go to university.

Shortly before the couple married in December 2012, the pursuer transferred title to both properties, worth £180,000 and £56,700, to the defender, insisting that he had done so to “show his love and commitment to her” although they were not “outright gifts” as he intended them to be part of their “matrimonial assets”.

Soon after the wedding the defender moved into the next door flat with her children and within three months – after the pursuer returned from a visit to Poland – she told him the marriage was over.

Financial dispute

The defender first sought a simplified divorce in May 2015, but her application was refused by a sheriff on the basis that the procedure was “inappropriate” as the pursuer – who did not oppose the divorce itself – wished to seek an order for financial provision.

He emailed her to engage in discussions to reach an agreement about their finances, but she did not reply and in late 2015 – after being sequestrated with a trustee appointed for the benefit of her creditors – she again applied for divorce using the simplified procedure, which was granted in February 2016 at Dunfermline Sheriff Court while Mr Jandoo was abroad.

The pursuer sought to have the decree set aside because there was a dispute about the couple’s finances at the time of the divorce and therefore the simplified procedure was “not appropriate”.

He said he did know the action had been raised and did not receive emails and letters about the case from his solicitors as he was in India between December 2015 and March 2016, adding that had he known he would have taken steps to enter the process or to ensure that decree was not granted in his absence.

However, the defender had since remarried and maintained that she “properly followed all the required steps” in the divorce action, but the pursuer failed to respond. In any event, she argued that he had “no good claims” against her and accordingly reduction should be refused.

‘Alternative course’

Lord Woolman said he was minded to find in the pursuer’s favour but there were two “complicating factors”: the defender’s remarriage, as cancelling the divorce would place her in “legal limbo” because she “cannot be married to two men at the same time”; and her sequestration, as the trustee in bankruptcy had an interest in the outcome of the case having raised an action to remove the pursuer from PF1.

However, the judge also considered that since the defender knew that the purser was likely to make a financial claim in the event of divorce, by proceeding as she did she “deprived” him of the opportunity to seek an order for financial provision.

In a written opinion, Lord Woolman said: “I am satisfied that, having regard to the whole circumstances, the relevant criteria are met and that it is appropriate to grant decree of reduction.

“To address the practical problems, at the conclusion of the proof I directed that the decree should not be extracted for a period of three months. That was designed to allow the parties to resolve matters, either judicially or extra-judicially.

“On further reflection, I prefer an alternative course. I shall fix a By Order hearing in three months’ time. It is in the interests of the parties to cooperate and reach agreement. That may mean that no further hearing is required and I will not need to pronounce decree for reduction.

“If, however, no agreement is reached shortly, then the parties can either (i) amend the pleadings in this action to conclude for divorce and financial provision, or (ii) raise fresh proceedings in the Sheriff Court.”

Dr Jandoo, who led an inquiry into the police investigation of the murder of Surjit Singh Chhokar, was fined £2,500 in 2005 after being convicted of endangering an aircraft and frightening and alarming passengers by making references to a bomb during a flight to the Isle of Lewis. He also pled guilty to two charges of breach of the peace in Edinburgh in 2013.