JUDGEMENT - DR. E.S. DA SILVA, J. :---Rule, by consent, returnable forthwith. This is a petition instituted by the petitioners for confirmation of their divorce made by mutual consent by a Court in Brazil. 2. Both the petitioners are nationals and citizens of India of Goan origin respectively born at Panaji in Goa from Goan parents. They were married to each other in a catholic marriage with Civil effects on 6th May 1979 at Panaji, Goa and their marriage was registered in the Civil Registration Office of Ilhas, Panaji, under No. 111/79. The said marriage was also registered in the Civil Registration Office of Santos, Brazil, where they had gone for employment. By judgment dated 14th June, 1989 of the Judge in charge of the 3rd Civil Court of Santos, Brazil, which became res judicata on 17th October, 1989, the judicial separation of the petitioners was decreed initially and afterwards, by Judgment of Approval dated 24th February, 1993 by the Judge of 3rd Civil Court of Santos, divorce by mutual consent of the spouses was pronounced which became res judicata on 25th February, 1993. From their dissolved marriage there are two minor children being (1) Daniel aged 13 years and (2) Suzana aged 9 years. The foreign Judgment of Divorce by mutual consent pronounced on 24th February, 1993 by the competent Court of the then residence of the petitioners fulfills the conditions set out in the several clauses of Article 1102 of the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code, 1939 and the other legal provisions applicable and in force for being revised and confirmed or recognized in the State of Goa. Both the petitioners have come back to India soon after their divorce and have their permanent residence and domicile in Goa. The said Judgment of divorce by mutual consent has also a corresponding institute of law contained in the Law of Divorce dated 3rd November, 1910 which is in force in this State, namely, Articles 3542 as well as Articles 1472 to 1476 of the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code, 1939 and its specific requirements, the foreign divorce being not contrary to the principles of public order and public policy in force in this country. On the basis of these pleadings the petitioners pray that the decree of consensual divorce dated 24th February, 1993 be revised and confirmed by this Court by way of the present proceedings for the Judgment producing all its legal effects in India. 3. Heard Mr. Bharne, learned Additional Government Advocate. No contentions were raised by him coming in the way of revision and confirmation of the Judgment of divorce of mutual consent obtained by the petitioners in a foreign Court at Brazil. I have gone though the Judgment sought to be confirmed and I have heard Dr. Colaco, learned Counsel who appeared for the petitioners. 4. Article 1100 of the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code, 1939 provides that no decision of private rights pronounced by foreign courts shall have efficacy or shall have effect without being revised. Article 1101 lays down that for the revision and confirmation it is competent the High Court of the judicial district within which the petitioners are domiciled or residing. Article 1102 specifies the necessary requisites for confirmation of foreign Judgments and stipulates amongst others that for the judgment being confirmed it is necessary that there should be no doubt on the authenticity of the document wherein the judgment is recorded, that the judgment had become final (res judicata) according to the law of the country where it was pronounced, that it should come from a Court competent according to the rules of conflict of jurisdiction and that it does not contain decisions contrary to the principles of the public order of the country. In the instant case I am satisfied that the grounds on which the decree has been obtained by the petitioners do not seem to oppose the public policy in this country and that the Judgment was pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, in my view, the presumption of section 41 of the Evidence Act read with sections 13 and 14 of the Civil Procedure Code is available to the petitioners. I therefore see no reason not to grant the confirmation sought for by the petitioners so much so as contended by them it is required to enable them to cancel the registration of their marriage effected in India so that the petitioners if they choose to get married again at any stage need not be charged in future for bigamy. I therefore see no reason not to grant the confirmation sought for by the petitioners so much so as contended by them it is required to enable them to cancel the registration of their marriage effected in India so that the petitioners if they choose to get married again at any stage need not be charged in future for bigamy. This being the position, I do not find any reason as to why such confirmation should not be made. 5. As a result rule is accordingly made absolute. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Necessary endorsements to be made in the competent Civil Registration Office. Petition allowed.