Court says foreign divorce proceedings cannot be stalled on a premature fear that any decree may not be recognized in India; UK Family Court found to be a more convenient forum.
The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a husband challenging the Calcutta High Court’s decision to set aside an ex parte anti-suit injunction that had restrained his wife from pursuing divorce and financial relief proceedings before a UK Family Court.
A Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria held that anti-suit injunctions against foreign proceedings must be granted sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. The Court said Indian courts should be extremely slow in interfering with proceedings pending before a foreign court, especially in matrimonial disputes where considerations of comity of courts and forum non conveniens are central.
The dispute arose after the husband filed a divorce petition in India under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, while the wife later initiated divorce proceedings and interim financial claims before the UK Family Court. The Alipore Trial Court had granted an ex parte anti-suit injunction in favour of the husband, reasoning that the wife’s plea of irretrievable breakdown of marriage was not a recognised ground under Indian law and that any foreign decree may not be enforceable in India under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Supreme Court found this approach legally unsustainable. It observed that the husband’s argument was premature because the UK proceedings were still pending and the foreign court had not yet decided the merits. The Court said it could not be assumed in advance that the wife would succeed in obtaining a divorce on a ground not recognised under Indian law, or that any eventual decree would necessarily be unenforceable.
The Bench emphasized that the question of recognition of a foreign matrimonial decree arises only after such a decree is passed. Until then, proceedings before the foreign court cannot ordinarily be restrained merely on speculative apprehensions.
The Court also agreed with the High Court’s view that the UK Family Court was the more appropriate forum. It noted several substantial connecting factors with the UK: the parties had lived together in London for a significant period, the husband had long residence in the UK, the wife claimed habitual residence there, and the matrimonial home and financial arrangements were centered in London. These facts, the Court said, made the UK a forum conveniens for the dispute.
Referring to earlier precedents including Modi Entertainment Network, Dinesh Singh Thakur, and Y. Narasimha Rao, the Court reiterated that anti-suit injunctions are equitable and discretionary remedies, not routine orders. Such injunctions may be granted only where refusal would defeat the ends of justice and where the foreign proceedings are oppressive, vexatious, or clearly proceeding in an inconvenient forum.
The Court further noted that the UK proceedings were at an inchoate stage when the Alipore Trial Court passed the injunction. This, according to the Bench, was another reason why the injunction should not have been granted.
Although a conditional divorce decree was later passed by the English court during the pendency of the appeal, the Supreme Court made it clear that its present ruling was confined to the legality of the anti-suit injunction order passed in India. It also observed that either party would remain free to challenge any further foreign order in accordance with law before the competent forum.
Concluding that the Calcutta High Court’s judgment was “eminently just and legal,” the Supreme Court upheld the vacation of the anti-suit injunction and dismissed the husband’s appeal.
Bottom Line:
Anti-suit injunction against prosecution of foreign matrimonial proceedings is to be granted sparingly; mere apprehension that a foreign court may grant divorce on a ground not recognised under Indian law is premature and insufficient. In matrimonial disputes, forum non conveniens, comity of courts, and existence of substantial connecting factors with the foreign forum are material considerations.
Statutory provision(s): Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 5(2)(d), Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act, 1973
Mihir Prakash Bajoria v. Vidushi Jain Bajoria, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2983343
