2026 INSC 1034 Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 1 of 32

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026)

MIHIR PRAKASH BAJORIA …APPELLANT

VERSUS

VIDUSHI JAIN BAJORIA …RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Leave granted.

2. What is under challenge in this Appeal is judgment

and order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the Division Bench

of the High Court at Calcutta

1 in FMAT No.466 of 2025.

Thereby the High Court allowed the Appeal of the

respondent-wife herein and set aside order dated

1

Hereinafter, “High Court”

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 2 of 32

01.11.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,

1

st Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas

2 in Title Suit No. 1656

of 2025 granting anti-suit injunction to the appellant-

husband.

2.1 The Alipore Trial Court, by the said order, had

restrained the respondent-wife herein, her men and agents

from prosecuting, continuing, or taking any step or further

step in or in connection with the proceedings of Case Nos.

1727-9691-3028-3233 and 1728-5776-1486-0043

instituted by the respondent-wife against the appellant-

husband herein, before the Central Family Court, United

Kingdom (UK)

3

, and in respect of any other proceedings of

like nature between the parties before any foreign Court.

2.2 The proceedings before the UK Family Court by the

respondent-wife were a divorce application contending that

the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The said order

of the Alipore Trial Court was passed while issuing notice

upon the defendants to show cause by the next date of

hearing, to be 01.12.2025. It was an interim order in the

2

Hereinafter, “Alipore Trial Court”

3

Hereinafter, “UK Family Court”

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 3 of 32

nature of anti-suit injunction pending the main proceedings

before the UK Family Court.

3. It is relevant to notice the facts. The relationship

between the parties, who are now strewn apart and

embroiled in the divorce litigation both before the Indian and

Foreign courts, dates back to the year 2014-2015, when the

respondent-wife relocated in the United Kingdom

4 to pursue

higher studies and cohabited with the appellant-husband

herein in London, who is stated to have facilitated securing

employment for her. They married in Kolkata on 15.12.2018

as per Hindu customs. They both stayed together in London

during the years 2018-2020 at Flat 14, Academy Gardens,

London. In February 2021, the respondent-wife left UK and

again came to India to remain in this country till March

2022, studying Pranic healing at an ashram.

3.1 The appellant-husband arranged in March 2022 the

spousal visa for the respondent-wife for resuming their

matrimonial life in UK. The parties returned to India in

October 2023 and resided together at the appellant-

4

Hereinafter, “UK”

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 4 of 32

husband’s family residence at Kolkata, during which period,

the appellant-husband used to visit other countries for his

business purposes. From 11.11.2023, the parties started

living separately, though under the same roof. On

16.11.2023, the respondent-wife left her matrimonial

residence to shift to her parental home at Kolkata.

3.1.1 Matrimonial Suit No. 2643 of 2024 came to be

instituted on 04.09.2024 by the appellant-husband before

the Court of 1

st Additional District Judge at Alipore

5 under

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

6

seeking a

decree of divorce and dissolution of marriage. The ground

put forth by the appellant-husband was that they had not

cohabited together since November 2023 and that their

marriage had broken down irretrievably.

3.1.2 The respondent-wife, on the other hand, initiated

proceedings before the UK Family Court by filing UK Case

No.1727-9691-3028-3233 on 10.10.2024, wherein she

prayed for dissolution of marriage with the appellant-

husband on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of

5

Hereinafter, “Alipore Family Court”

6

Hereinafter, “Hindu Marriage Act”

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 5 of 32

marriage. The ancillary proceedings were also initiated on

the same day by the wife by filing UK Case No. 1728-5776-

1486-0043, seeking interim financial relief in the nature of

claim for maintenance and related monetary orders. It

appears that the UK Family Court by order dated

06.12.2024, allocated the case to the District Judge

Ashworth treating the case to be a complex case.

3.1.3 The appellant-husband participated in the

aforementioned proceedings before the UK Family Court

without submitting to its jurisdiction, whereas the

respondent-wife asserted her continued residence in UK by

relying on her student visa which was valid up to

29.09.2026. The divorce proceedings instituted by the

appellant-husband before the Alipore Family Court were

contested by the respondent-wife by filing written statement

on 17.03.2025, in which she raised various grounds

including that she had stayed for most of the times in

London, including at the time when the appellant-husband

filed the suit in India.

3.1.4 The UK Family Court passed an order dated

16.05.2025 and directed the appellant-husband to pay the

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 6 of 32

interim maintenance and costs. The UK Family Court on the

same day by separate order appointed a Senior Advocate as

Single Joint Expert on Indian law. The appellant-husband

was directed to furnish the details regarding ownership of

Flats Nos. 14 and 58, Academy Gardens. The appellant-

husband raised an objection regarding jurisdiction of the

court. On 16.05.2025, the UK Family Court passed order on

the objection as to jurisdiction and directed to determine the

issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, requiring the

petitioner before it – the wife, to disclose the details relating

to the ownership and control of the residential property at

Academy Gardens, London where the parties had spent

most of their marital life.

3.1.5 It appears that the respondent-wife thereupon

moved an application before the UK Family Court seeking

permission to file second divorce petition and to dismiss her

first application dated 10.10.2024. She prayed to continue

the relief granted and the orders passed in that regard in the

proceedings of the application filed in the first instance. The

UK Family Court granted such permission. In the meantime,

the application filed by the wife under Section 151 of the

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 7 of 32

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

7, seeking stay of the

proceedings initiated by the appellant-husband in India on

the ground of pendency of the proceedings in the UK Family

Court, came to be dismissed.

3.1.6 The second divorce application of the respondent-

wife permitted by the UK Family Court on 28.10.2025 was

directed to be heard from 08.12.2025 to be confined to the

issue of jurisdiction or the forum. The interim financial

proceedings and the related orders earlier passed by the UK

Family Court in the previous proceedings were continued.

3.1.7 The respondent-wife also filed an application under

Section 151, CPC seeking stay of the proceedings of

Matrimonial Suit No. 2643 of 2024, which was the divorce

suit instituted by the appellant-husband. The said

application came to be rejected by order dated 25.09.2025.

The Indian court held that the appellant-husband’s divorce

petition was maintainable and it shall proceed under the

Hindu Marriage Act notwithstanding the pendency of the

proceedings in the UK Family Court. Revision petition filed

7

Hereinafter, “CPC”

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 8 of 32

by the wife against the said order dated 25.09.2025 is

pending and an order has been passed for referring the

matter to mediation.

3.1.8 In the meantime, the UK Family Court by order dated

10.12.2025 determined the issue of appropriate forum for

the divorce proceedings between the parties holding that the

UK Family Court was the convenient forum for the parties

to pursue the divorce proceedings.

3.2 It was thereafter that on 31.10.2025, the appellant-

husband instituted Title Suit No. 1656 of 2025 before the

Court of learned 1

st Civil Judge (Senior Division), Alipore, in

which a declaration was sought for that the proceedings

initiated by the respondent-wife in UK were vexatious and

without jurisdiction. A further relief of permanent injunction

for restraining the respondent-wife from prosecuting the

proceedings was prayed for. The appellant-husband claimed

a sum of Rs.2,40,00,000/- along with interest at 18% per

annum towards the amounts paid by him pursuant to the

orders of the UK Family Court passed in favour of the

respondent-wife, including seeking an amount of

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 9 of 32

Rs.85,00,000/- towards legal expenses claimed to have been

incurred in defending the court proceedings in UK.

3.2.1 In the aforementioned title suit, the appellant-

husband filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1

and 2 read with Section 151, CPC before the Alipore Trial

Court, in which the appellant-husband sought for

temporary injunction in the Indian proceedings against

respondent-wife’s continuation of the proceedings initiated

in UK Family Court for divorce by respondent-wife. The

Alipore Trial Court granted ex-parte ad interim anti-suit

injunction by order dated 01.11.2025 restraining the

respondent-wife from prosecuting or taking any further

steps in the pending matrimonial and financial proceedings

before the UK Family Court.

3.2.2 It was said order of the Alipore Trial Court that came

to be called in question by the wife before the High Court

and was set aside by the High Court, which now is under

challenge in this Appeal.

3.3 However, before turning to the order of the High

Court impugned herein, certain developments post the said

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 10 of 32

order dated 01.11.2025, may be noticed in order to complete

the narration of chain of events. On 10.11.2025, the

respondent-wife moved an application before the High Court

of Justice, Family Division, England and Wales seeking

injunctive and declaratory relief against the appellant-

husband in relation to Indian anti-suit injunction order

dated 01.11.2025 and in respect of the connected

proceedings pending before the court in India. The High

Court of Justice, Family Division, England and Wales passed

an ex-parte order and restrained the appellant-husband

from enforcing and relying upon Indian anti-suit injunction

and not to take any steps which may undermine the English

proceedings, reaffirmed the right of the wife to continue the

proceedings before the UK Family Court.

3.4 While passing order dated 01.11.2025 to grant anti-

suit injunction, the Alipore Trial Court took the view that the

cause of action espoused by the respondent-wife in the

proceedings before UK Family Court was not recognised

under the Indian law inasmuch as the ground of

irretrievable breakdown of marriage was not to be a good

ground under the Indian law for passing the decree of

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 11 of 32

divorce, that even if a decree of divorce on the said ground

was to be passed by the UK Family Court, it would not be

enforceable in India under Section 13, CPC. It was observed

that the expert Senior Advocate who was appointed by the

UK Family Court gave similar opinion that the jurisdiction

could not have been exercised by the UK Family Court and

also that the order of maintenance passed by the said

foreign court was not binding on the parties.

3.4.1 The aspect was taken into account that by order

dated 25.09.2025, the Alipore Family Court had rejected the

prayer of the respondent-wife under Section 151, CPC for

stay of the matrimonial proceedings and the Alipore Family

Court affirmed that it alone had jurisdiction over the

matrimonial dispute between the parties. It was the view of

the Alipore Trial Court that the maintenance amount

awarded by the UK Family Court was not according to law

and was oppressive and onerous in nature. According to

Alipore Trial Court, the temporary protection was required

to be granted to the appellant-husband as the balance of

convenience was in his favour and further that the

continuation of the foreign proceedings would give rise to the

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 12 of 32

multiplicity of actions and conflict of jurisdictions. Resting

on such grounds, the Alipore Trial Court justified the grant

of anti-suit injunction.

3.5 The High Court in its judgment impugned herein

allowed the Appeal of the respondent-wife and set at naught

the order of anti-suit injunction dated 01.11.2025 passed by

the Alipore Trial Court for the reasons recorded by it. The

High Court, dealing with the submissions on the aspect of

forum non conveniens observed that the said principle would

normally apply to the court where the proceedings were

initiated and that it is for such court to decide that it is a

forum non conveniens and to consider on such ground

whether to dismiss or permit the proceedings to be

instituted before another court which is more convenient to

the parties. It was thus held by the High Court that it was

for the UK Family Court which could invoke the forum non

conveniens principle.

3.5.1 Regarding the contention as to whether the

respondent-wife was habitual resident for one year prior to

the filing of the divorce petition which was the requirement

under Section 5(2)(d) of the Domicile and Matrimonial

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 13 of 32

Proceedings Act, 1973

8, it was observed that the issue was

arguable and required adjudication by appropriate forum.

The High Court noted that the UK Family Court had already

stayed the divorce and maintenance proceedings pending

adjudication of the forum/jurisdiction issue, thus the

competence aspect was already under consideration.

3.5.2 The High Court further stated that even if the

concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage which was

treated as a facet of cruelty, was to be considered, it was pre-

mature to opine on the said aspect. The concept of comity of

courts recognised under Sections 13 and 14, CPC was

highlighted by the High Court. It was also observed that the

courts having jurisdiction in different countries would

respect each other’s jurisdiction and that since the

adjudication was pending before the UK Family Court, it

would be inappropriate to grant any order in the nature of

anti-suit injunction.

3.5.3 It was also stated that the order of alimony passed

by the UK Family Court created an accrued right in favour

8

Hereinafter, “Domicile Act”

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 14 of 32

of the respondent-wife which aspect also ought to have

dissuaded in the court in India from granting anti-suit

injunction, more particularly, when the UK Family Court

already fixed the forum/jurisdiction issue.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Ms. Meenakshi Arora for the

appellant-husband raised the following submissions:

(i) The Alipore Trial Court was justified in

restraining the respondent-wife from

prosecuting parallel proceedings before the

foreign court which were oppressive.

(ii) The Alipore Trial Court exercised its

jurisdiction within the settled parameters

governing the grant of an anti-suit injunction,

with the object of preventing multiplicity of

proceedings and avoiding the possibility of

conflicting decisions.

(iii) The High Court overlooked the fact that the

parties were Indian citizens married in

accordance with the provisions of the Hindu

Marriage Act and that the foreign proceedings

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 15 of 32

initiated by the respondent-wife were found on

grounds not recognized under the Hindu

Marriage Act and thus remained vulnerable

under Section 13, CPC.

(iv) The judgments rendered by this Court in Y.

Narasimha Rao and Others v. Y. Venkata

Lakshmi and Another

9 and Kishorekumar

Mohan Kale v. Kashmira Kale

10 were relied

on to contend and buttress the submission

that the ground of relief granted by a foreign

Court has to be consistent with the

matrimonial law governing the parties.

(v) It was sought to be highlighted the fact that

the proceedings instituted by the appellant-

husband were earlier in point in time and

subsequently the respondent-wife instituted

the divorce and maintenance proceedings to

exert pressure and to subject the appellant-

9

(1991) 3 SCC 451

10

2026 SCC OnLine SC 448

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 16 of 32

husband to parallel and inconsistent

adjudicatory processes.

4.1 On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Ms.

Shobha Gupta appearing on behalf of the respondent-wife

contended that the appellant-husband’s reliance on possible

non-recognition of a future foreign decree under Section 13,

CPC was pre-mature and that the recognition of a foreign

decree depends on the jurisdiction exercised, observance of

the principles of natural justice and cannot be determined

merely upon the nomenclature of the ground on which the

decree is granted. It was further contended that the power

to grant anti-suit injunction must be exercised with

circumspection, where the refusal of injunction may defeat

the ends of justice.

4.1.1 It was next contended on behalf of the respondent-

wife that the judgment in Y. Narasimha Rao (supra) was

concerned with the recognition and conclusiveness of

foreign matrimonial decrees after they are passed and did

not mandate restraining pending foreign proceedings on the

apprehension of future non-recognition under Section 13,

CPC. It was further submitted that the matrimonial home of

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 17 of 32

the parties was established in UK, thus the English Court

was the appropriate forum to entertain the matrimonial

proceedings. It was also contended that the appellant-

husband failed to establish any circumstance justifying the

grant of relief of anti-suit injunction and that he had been

residing in UK since the age of 14-15 years, returning to

India only to avoid the divorce and financial remedy

proceedings pending in UK.

5. Anti-suit injunctions are meant to restrain a party to

a suit or proceeding from instituting or prosecuting a case

in another court, including a foreign court. An anti-suit

injunction is a judicial order of the nature by which one

party is restrained from prosecuting a case in another court

outside its jurisdiction. The parameters to be applied for

grant of injunction would in-principle apply also in respect

of grant or otherwise of the anti-suit injunction. As the

principle of equity is in the heart of the jurisprudence for

grant of injunctive directions, the anti-suit injunction orders

are also governed and guided by the doctrine of equity,

where the court would apply the equitable principles.

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 18 of 32

5.1 It is true that the courts in India have the power to

issue anti-suit injunction. Anti-suit injunction can be issued

in favour of a party over whom the court has personal

jurisdiction. There are well recognised principles which

govern the discretion of the court in granting anti-suit

injunction.

5.2 In Modi Entertainment Network and Another vs.

W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd.

11

, the principles on this score were

set out. The first is that the defendant, against whom the

injunction is sought, should be amenable to the personal

jurisdiction of the court. The next is that if the injunction is

declined, the ends of justice will be defeated and injustice

will be perpetuated. The third principle is about comity of

courts.

5.2.1 In case where more forums than one are available,

the court in exercise of its discretion to grant anti-suit

injunction, will examine as to which is the appropriate

forum having regard to the convenience of the parties and

may grant anti-suit injunction with regard to proceedings

11

(2003) 4 SCC 341

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 19 of 32

which are oppressive or vexatious or in a forum non

conveniens. These very principles laid down in Modi

Entertainment Network (supra) came to be reiterated by

the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Mashreq

Bank PSC vs. Indian Overseas Bank and Others

12

.

5.2.2 The High Court of Delhi in Raaj Unocal Lubricants

Limited vs. Apple Energy Private Limited and Another

13

highlighted the aspect of judicial comity while exercising

powers under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 13,

CPC in granting anti-suit injunctions. It was stated that the

only provision available in CPC is Section 13 which permits

an Indian court to treat a foreign judgment to be not

conclusive and thus, Indian courts have no authority to stall

the proceedings in a foreign court.

5.2.3 Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited (supra), the High

Court of Delhi observed in paragraph 36 of the judgment,

“Anti-suit injunctions are, on the other hand,

granted to bring to a halt the prosecution, by one

or the other party before the Indian courts, of the

proceedings pending in a foreign court. It is

axiomatic that a court in one sovereign jurisdiction,

cannot stay proceedings pending before a court in

another sovereign jurisdiction, for the simple

12

2021 SCC OnLine Guj 2678

13

2021 SCC OnLine Del 2395

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 20 of 32

reason that courts do not possess appellate or

supervisory powers across political boundaries. An

anti-suit injunction, therefore, does not stay

proceedings before the foreign court, but merely

restrains the party, before the Indian court, from

prosecuting, or continuing to prosecute, the

proceedings before the foreign court. It is a directive

to the party before the Indian court, over which the

Indian court possesses jurisdiction, and not a

direction to the foreign court, or even a direct

interference with the continuance of the

proceedings before the foreign court.”

5.3 The oppressive or vexatious nature of the

proceedings and irreparable harm are the twin prime

considerations to be borne in mind by an Indian court while

putting on hold a judicial process in the foreign jurisdiction.

The anti-suit injunction has the tendency to interfere with

the exercise of jurisdiction by the court in another sovereign

territory to which the jurisdiction of the injunctive court

does not extend.

5.4 Examining the High Court’s judgment, it adverted to

the doctrine of forum non conveniens which is one of the

decisive factors for grant of anti-suit injunction. The doctrine

will be applied by the court where the suit is initiated for

judging whether the same court is a convenient forum for

the parties or there exists any other forum or court where

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 21 of 32

the parties may more conveniently litigate. The doctrine is

applied more particularly in matrimonial proceedings for

advancing the interests of justice. The court would exercise

its inherent jurisdiction for staying the proceedings pending

at a forum which is found to be not convenient and that

there is another forum which is considered to be more

convenient to subserve the interest of the litigating parties

to meet the ends of justice.

5.4.1 In Arif Azim Company Limited vs. Micromax

Informatics FZE

14

, this Court stated about the term and the

doctrine of “forum non conveniens” thus,

“The term “forum non conveniens” is a Latin term

which means “an inconvenient forum” and provides

that a court which otherwise might have

jurisdiction may decline jurisdiction over a case if

there is a more appropriate forum available to the

parties, and is typically invoked in respect of cross-

border subject-matters that are amenable to

multiple concurrent jurisdictions. Depending upon

the nature of the dispute, the subject-matter

involves and the parties thereto, the courts by

invoking this doctrine proceed to determine which

one of the available forums may be more convenient

and fair for entertaining and adjudicating the

matter.

(Para 71)

14

(2025) 9 SCC 750

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 22 of 32

5.4.2 This Court stated that in order to apply the doctrine

of forum non conveniens an adequate alternative forum

capable of providing fair and adequate remedy must exist

where the subject-matter may be espoused. It was stated

that this does not mean that the alternative forum must offer

identical remedies. The courts exercise a high level of

discretion and often issue rulings that are fact specific.

5.4.3 In Modi Entertainment Network (supra), this Court

referred to with approval and relied on an English decision

in Spiliada Maritime Corporation vs. Cansulex Ltd.

15

. The

House of Lords laid down the principle thus,

“The fundamental principle applicable to both the

stay of English proceedings on the ground that

some other forum was the appropriate forum and

also the grant of leave to serve proceedings out of

the jurisdiction was that the court would choose that

forum in which the case could be tried more suitably

for the interests of all the parties and for the ends of

justice”

5.4.4 The doctrine of forum non conveniens was explained

by this Court in a recent judgment in Baksish Ahmad vs.

Union of India and Another

16

,

“The doctrine of forum non conveniens applies only

where multiple fora are available to a litigant for

15

(1986) 3 All ER 843

16

2026 SCC OnLine SC 1098

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 23 of 32

seeking the same remedy; and, when such multiple

fora are available, the forum which has been

approached is entitled in law to examine whether

any other forum is more convenient and/or better

suited to consider and decide the claim that has

been raised by the aggrieved litigant. For informed

reasons, the forum seized of the claim may refuse

to entertain the claim and leave the said litigant free

to approach the other forum.”

(Para 29)

5.5 The court should exercise the discretion by taking

into account various attendant factors. Ordinarily, the

burden to prove that the court or forum in seisin of the

matter is an inconvenient forum or the proceedings are

oppressive or vexatious at such forum lies on the party

contending the same.

5.5.1 As a matter of principle of law and the judicial

discretion, the grant of anti-suit injunction is not a matter

of course. The anti-suit injunction orders are not supposed

to be a routine judicial exercise. The anti-suit injunction

order is not the one which the court may grant on an

askance. The court should be extremely slow, unless the

pure legal or jurisdictional considerations are applicable, to

issue the anti-suit injunction and thereby stall the

proceedings in a court in the foreign country.

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 24 of 32

5.5.2 Frequent and unmindful resort would not only

undermine the concept of comity of courts but such orders

would be tantamount to interjection by the court into the

sovereign judicial jurisdiction of a court functioning in the

foreign country. A wrong exercise of powers to grant anti-

suit injunction orders may lead to jurisdictional conflict and

generate multiplicity of proceedings and indiscreetly expand

the scope of process as well as of relief orders, after

divergent.

5.6 This Court in Dinesh Singh Thakur vs. Sonal

Thakur

17

, underlined that anti-suit injunctions by their very

nature interject the proceedings within the jurisdiction of

another court in foreign country to assert that the injunction

in the nature of anti-suit injunction could be granted

sparingly,

“However, before passing the order of anti-suit

injunction, courts should be very cautious and

careful, and it should be granted sparingly and not

as a matter of routine as such orders involve a court

impinging on the jurisdiction of another court,

which is not entertained very easily specially when

it restrains the parties from instituting or

continuing a case in a foreign court.”

[Para 13]

17

(2018) 17 SCC 12

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 25 of 32

5.6.1 The facts involved in Dinesh Singh Thakur (supra)

are comparable and akin to the facts involved in the present

case. The marriage between the husband and wife in that

case was solemnised in the year 1995 as per Hindu rites.

Two children were born out of the wedlock. The husband had

been working in the United States of America (USA) at the

time of marriage and took the wife to USA on dependent visa.

Both got the USA citizenship and subsequently became the

overseas citizens of India. The husband filed petition under

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the wife before

the Family Court, Gurugram in the year 2016. The wife also

filed a divorce petition in the Circuit Court, Florida, USA on

the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and also

seeking other related reliefs.

5.6.2 The husband residing in USA instituted a civil suit

before the District Judge, Family Court, Gurugram seeking

permanent injunction and declaration inter-alia to restrain

the wife from pursuing the petition for divorce before the

USA Court. The District Judge passed the order granting ex-

parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the husband. The

wife filed an application for vacation and modification of the

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 26 of 32

order which was allowed by the District Judge. The High

Court dismissed the revision petition preferred by the

husband.

5.6.3 This Court dismissed the appeal of the husband and

rejected the contention of the husband that the proceedings

of divorce in the foreign court on the ground of irretrievable

breakdown of marriage was not maintainable as the same

was not a ground of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.

It was observed that though the said ground of breakdown

of marriage required consideration, the mere fact that the

wife filed the case on the ground which is not available to

her under the Act, did not mean that there was a likelihood

of her succeeding in getting a decree for divorce.

5.6.4 It was further stated that the foreign court cannot be

presumed to be exercising its jurisdiction wrongly even if the

husband proves that the parties continue to be governed by

the law governing Hindus in India in the matter of dispute

between them.

5.6.5 In Dinesh Singh Thakur (supra), after the District

Judge, Gurugram granted ex-parte injunction by order dated

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 27 of 32

26.09.2016 to the husband, the aggrieved wife filed an

application for vacation and modification of the said order.

The District Judge by order dated 18.10.2016 vacated the

injunction granted to the husband on 26.09.2016. The

husband preferred appeal before the High Court which came

to be dismissed and this Court also refused to interfere with

the decision of the High Court in the facts of the case and

applying the relevant principles in respect of grant of anti-

suit injunction.

5.6.6 The law laid down in Dinesh Singh Thakur (supra)

would apply to the facts of the present case by reverse logic.

5.7 In the case on hand also, the very ground was sought

to be raised by the appellant-husband for staying of the

proceedings in the UK Family Court on the footing that the

divorce case by the respondent-wife was the ground of

irretrievable breakdown of marriage and since that ground

is not recognized as valid ground for divorce under the

Indian law, the decree of divorce which may be passed by

the UK Family Court would not have an efficacy or

enforceability. This was entirely a misplaced ground raised

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 28 of 32

by the appellant-husband in view of the stage and status of

the suit before the UK Family Court.

5.7.1 The main proceedings are pending, and all the issues

are at large including the jurisdiction of that court. The

ground raised by the respondent-wife for divorce was

required to be established on evidence by her. On the

speculative consideration that the suit would be decreed by

the UK Family Court on the ground of irretrievable

breakdown of marriage, anti-suit injunction would not have

been granted by the Alipore Trial Court. It adverted to a pre-

mature ground at pre-mature stage and thus erred in

proceeding to pass the anti-suit injunction order projecting

that ground.

5.8 Applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens to the

facts of the present case, the High Court was justified in

holding that the forum conveniens was the court in UK. By

way of a settled residence, the appellant-husband and

respondent-wife stayed in UK. The appellant-husband had

been residing in UK for several years since the age of 14-15

years. The respondent-wife was on student visa to be in UK

and was a “habitual resident” of UK. Although their marriage

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 29 of 32

was solemnised in India at Kolkata, most of the times prior

to the marriage and post marriage, they resided at 14

Academy Gardens, Duchess of Bedford Walks, Kensington,

London W8 7QQ, UK. At the time of filing of the suit in India,

the respondent-wife was residing in UK at the

abovementioned address.

5.8.1 Both parties lived together as husband and wife in

London, UK and had established their interests in that

country showing the intentions to permanent stay there.

Thus, the proceedings initiated by the respondent-wife

before the English Court were founded on the substantial

connecting factors. These factors included the prolonged

matrimonial life, making London as habitual centre of

interests, having matrimonial home and having financial

arrangements also in UK.

5.9 One of the factors, which should dissuade the court

from granting anti-suit injunction is that the proceedings

before the foreign court which are sought to be interjected,

are yet to conclude. No legitimate ground or logical reason

would generally arise to stay the proceedings before the

foreign court by way of anti-suit injunction, when they are

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 30 of 32

at an inchoate stage and have not culminated into a final

decision. When the Alipore Trial Court granted anti-suit

injunction ignoring this factual aspect that the proceedings

at the UK Family Court had not concluded, it committed a

patent error.

6. At this stage, it deserves to be noted that during the

pendency of the SLP (the present appeal), the English

District Judge, Shorthose, at the Birmingham Civil and

Family Justice Centre, passed a conditional divorce decree

on 17.06.2026 in Case No. 1764-2820-3963-5147. In that

light, Interlocutory Application No.212238 of 2026 was filed

by the appellant-husband, upon which this Court, on

30.07.2026, granted stay. The respondent-wife, her agents

and servants were restrained from proceeding pursuant to

the Conditional Divorce Order dated 17.06.2026.

7. While the said development took place during the

pendency of the present appeal, the substratum of challenge

in this Appeal remained confined to anti-suit injunction

order passed by the Alipore Trial Court on 01.11.2025,

which was set aside by the High Court by the impugned

judgment. This court has accordingly examined the merits

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 31 of 32

of the said order dated 01.11.2025 only and adverted to the

legal justification of its vacation by the High Court in the

present judgment.

8. The either of the parties are at liberty to challenge,

as may be advised, any further and final orders, which may

be passed by the UK Family Court by which they may feel

aggrieved in accordance with law and before the competent

forum available raising of the grounds as may be available

in law including the aforementioned order dated 17.06.2026

passed against the appellant-husband.

9. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the said

count and the observations made in the present judgment

will not have any influential effect on any further

proceedings which, the aggrieved party, may require to

undertake.

10. For the reasons supplied by the High Court and

those additionally delineated and discussed hereinabove,

the judgment and order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the

High Court at Calcutta in FMAT No.466 of 2025 allowing the

appeal, setting aside the order dated 01.11.2025 passed by

Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026 Page 32 of 32

the 1

st Civil Judge (Senior Division), Alipore in Title Suit

No.1656 of 2025 and vacating anti-suit injunction, is

eminently just and legal. It deserves to be upheld. The same

is accordingly upheld.

11. The present appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed.

Any and all interlocutory applications, as may be

pending, shall not survive in view of dismissal of the main

appeal.

.………………………...J.

[S.V.N. BHATTI]

………………………….J.

[N.V. ANJARIA]

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 22, 2026.