Mihir Prakash Bajoria v. Vidushi Jain Bajoria
Background
The husband and wife, both Indians, had lived together for years in London (where the husband had settled since his teens) and married in Kolkata in 2018 under Hindu rites, later separating in India in November 2023. The husband filed for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act at Alipore, Kolkata, in September 2024, while the wife separately filed for divorce and maintenance before the UK Family Court on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage (not a recognised ground under Indian law), a proceeding in which the UK court itself held it was the appropriate forum. The husband then filed a fresh suit in Alipore seeking a declaration that the UK proceedings were vexatious, and obtained an ex-parte anti-suit injunction from the Alipore Trial Court restraining the wife from continuing the UK case. On the wife's appeal, the Calcutta High Court set aside this injunction, holding that the doctrine of forum non conveniens and comity of courts meant the UK court itself should decide questions of jurisdiction and forum, and that the husband's challenge (based on non-recognition under Section 13 CPC of a future foreign decree) was premature. The husband appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reasoning, restating that anti-suit injunctions are an extraordinary remedy to be granted sparingly. The party seeking one must show the foreign proceedings are oppressive/vexatious or in a forum non conveniens, and that refusal would defeat the ends of justice, per the settled principles in Modi Entertainment Network v. WSG Cricket. Applying these principles, the Court found the UK Family Court was in fact the more convenient forum, since both parties had genuinely established their matrimonial home, residence, and financial life in London for years, giving the UK court substantial connecting factors to the dispute. The husband's argument that a prospective foreign divorce decree on the ground of irretrievable breakdown would be unenforceable in India under Section 13 CPC was held to be speculative and premature, since the UK proceedings had not yet concluded and the foreign court's own jurisdiction was itself still under adjudication, relying on its own precedent in Dinesh Singh Thakur v. Sonal Thakur, which similarly declined to grant anti-suit relief merely because a foreign court might apply a ground for divorce not recognised in India. The Court noted that although the UK court had since passed a conditional divorce decree during the appeal's pendency (which the Supreme Court had separately stayed), that development was outside the scope of this appeal, which was confined only to examining the validity of the original 2025 anti-suit injunction. Finding the High Court's vacation of that injunction legally correct, the Supreme Court dismissed the husband's appeal, while leaving both parties free to raise any grounds regarding the later UK divorce order before the appropriate forum.
Lesson Learnt
Indian courts will grant an anti-suit injunction against a spouse pursuing divorce proceedings abroad only in rare, clear cases of oppression or lack of any genuine connection to the foreign forum. Where a couple has genuinely built their matrimonial life abroad, courts will respect the principle of comity and let the foreign court decide its own jurisdiction, rather than pre-emptively blocking those proceedings based on speculation that a future foreign decree might not be enforceable in India.