In a precedent setting decision, the B.C. Supreme Court has ordered a Fijian man to pay his Vancouver-area wife more than $25,000 for abandoning her after he arrived in Canada.

Describing Rajendra Kumar, now of Edmonton, as a "cad", Justice E. R. A. Edwards in his ruling said the man misrepresented his true feelings towards Madhavi Raju, a childless 41-year-old divorcee.

His true motive for marrying her was so he could come to Canada, the judge ruled.

The case has wide ranging implications for new-Canadians, who abandon their spouses shortly after getting their landed status, lawyers told The Asian Pacific Post.

Kumar could also be deported should Immigration Canada pick up this case and investigate.

Prior to this case "the fact that the husband had an improper motive for marriage, or was not as suitable a candidate as the wife had thought, has never been a ground for invalidating the marriage, or for awarding damages," Justice Edwards wrote.

"All our evidence established that her estranged husband falsely represented his intention to marry her, falsely represented his intention to stay married to her and falsely represented his intention to build a family with her in Canada," said Raju’s lawyer, John McGreevy

"The defendant was unable to explain his behavior, why he left her immediately after arriving in Canada," he said.

Richard Kurland, a Vancouver-based immigration specialist said the decision has established a precedent.

"Prior to this decision the generally accepted view of the law was that a spouse had no right to sue her husband under common law for any tort, including deceit," he said.

"If upheld as law, jilted sponsors should have a remedy against spouses in cases of marriages of immigration convenience," he said.

In an interview with The Asian Pacific Post after the decision, Raju said winning the case was "a relief for me."

She said her husband, whom she is still technically married to, used her to come to Canada.

"He lied to me from day one…his intention was to get rid of me…he cheated on me," said Raju.

Raju said she loved her husband. "It hurt me when he left me."

Kumar has filed for a divorce but Raju is in no rush to grant him that.

Her priority is to get the money awarded by the court first and after that she is prepared to grant him a divorce and move on with her life, said her lawyer, McGreevy.

Raju, a Canadian citizen of Fijian origin, was a self-supporting, childless, 41 year old divorcee when she married Kumar, a 29 year old divorcee with one daughter in Fiji on June 13, 1999.

Kumar a Fijian citizen had never been abroad.

The couple was introduced to each other two months earlier through family connections. They corresponded and spoke by telephone a few times before Raju flew to Fiji in June 1999 to meet Kumar personally.

Both testified each had told the other there could be no agreement to marry until they had met face-to-face.

According to Raju, they discussed their mutual desire to have children and Kumar expressed a desire to live in Canada.

Raju purchased engagement and wedding saris in Canada which she took with her to Fiji anticipating her marriage. She also took Canadian immigration forms necessary for the defendant to obtain landed immigrant status so he could live with her in Canada.

When Raju arrived in Fiji, she met Kumar two or three times for a few hours. With the assurance of her father that Kumar was a suitable man of the proper caste, she agreed to the marriage at a family meeting.

The court heard that before the marriage, Kumar told Raju of his divorce, that he had a daughter, and that he had split up with his girlfriend a few months before.

The couple was wed so soon that there was not even an opportunity for Raju to wear the sari she had bought for an engagement party.

She said she bought her husband a wedding ring for $300 and paid $1,000 for the wedding reception including an album of photos.

After the wedding Raju returned to Canada, filled in the immigration forms and submitted them on his behalf in July 1999, paying the requisite $500 fee.

In November 1999 Raju received an anonymous telephone call from a woman in Fiji who said "your husband is going to be mine."

In November 2000 his application for a visa was refused. Raju testified she was told by immigration officials that her husband could not answer some questions, failed to mention that he was intending to join her in Canada and did not give her address.

In a letter to his wife, Kumar said he did not know what went wrong in the immigration interview and expressing his continued desire to join her in Canada "soon."

Raju filed an immigration appeal on her husband’s behalf and paid the $2500 fee.

She then started getting more phone calls that her husband was having an affair with a woman in Fiji.

Raju flew to Fiji to confront him. He denied the affair in front of local police.

Kumar said the woman was pursuing him and that he wanted to stay married to Raju.

But Raju was suspicious and felt her husband was being unfaithful.

Her suspicion of infidelity was justified.

During the trial Kumar admitted he had lied to his wife and resumed his illicit affair shortly after she returned to Canada from Fiji in January 2001.

At the same time he continued to write love letters to his wife and she called him frequently at considerable expense.

In December 2001, Kumar was allowed to come to Canada after his appeal was granted.

An excited Raju paid the $975 landing fee for her husband, took him to her home and they resumed intimate relations.

After a few nights this ceased.

According to Raju, her husband hardly spoke to her and answered "you wouldn’t understand" when she asked why.

He refused to go to work and become angry when Raju who returned home from work questioned the messy house.

The marriage quickly deteriorated.

In January 2002, Kumar vanished.

He had flown to Edmonton where he resided with relatives and got a job. Within a few days of arriving there he contacted his lover in Fiji and began to write love letters to her.

For nine months until September 2002 Raju tried to locate her husband.

She spent over $8,000 on long distance telephone calls and was also bilked of her jewellery by a psychic she engaged to help find her husband.

Eventually Raju found her husband in Edmonton and when she telephoned him, he told her he did not want to speak to her and that she should not call again. Raju was devastated.

On January 27, 2003, Kumar petitioned for divorce from Raju in Alberta.

Justice Edwards said Kumar’s lack of commitment to the marriage was evident almost immediately upon his arrival in Canada.

He awarded Raju $1,300 for marriage expenses including the cost of the wedding reception and ring, $3,475 for immigration application expenses and special damages of $11, 376.

The judge also awarded Raju $10,000 general damages for hurt feelings, humiliation, inconvenience and postponement of the opportunity to marry another man while she was still capable of bearing children

"I make no award of punitive damages. While the defendant’s conduct was that of a cad, courts are reluctant to censure even the most egregious marital conduct, since to do so may promote vindictive and extortionate litigation," the judge added.