The Supreme Court has observed that an anti-suit injunction cannot be granted merely on the speculative apprehension that a foreign court may ultimately pass a decree on a ground not recognised under Indian matrimonial law and that such decree may consequently not be enforceable in India.

A bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria dismissed a husband's appeal against the Calcutta High Court's order which had interfered with the Alipore court's order granting an anti-suit injunction in favour of the husband. The Alipore court, in effect, restrained the wife from prosecuting matrimonial and maintenance proceedings against the husband before the Family Court in London, UK.

Affirming the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court said that an anti-suit injunction order cannot be passed routinely on a mere likelihood that the Foreign Court would pass a decree not recognised in India, thus remaining unenforceable in India.

The Case

The parties married in Kolkata in December 2018 according to Hindu rites and had lived together in London, where the wife had earlier moved for higher studies.

After returning to India in October 2023 and subsequently living separately, the husband instituted divorce proceedings before the Alipore court under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The wife thereafter instituted proceedings before the UK Family Court seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, besides seeking interim financial relief.

The UK proceedings were treated as a complex case, and questions concerning jurisdiction and forum were raised before the English court. Meanwhile, the husband instituted proceedings before the Alipore civil court seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the UK proceedings were vexatious and without jurisdiction.

On November 1, 2025, the trial court granted an ex parte anti-suit injunction restraining the wife from prosecuting the UK proceedings. One of the principal reasons relied upon was that irretrievable breakdown of marriage was not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act and, therefore, a decree passed by the UK court on that basis could not be recognised in India under Section 13 CPC.

The Calcutta High Court subsequently set aside the injunction. It held, inter alia, that the issue of whether the UK court was a forum non conveniens was required to be considered by the foreign court itself, and that the question of the wife's habitual residence and the jurisdiction of the UK court remained open. The High Court also noted that the UK Family Court had already stayed the proceedings pending determination of the jurisdictional issue.

The husband approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision.

Decision

Refusing to interfere with the impugned decision, the judgment authored by Justice Anjaria rejected the husband's reliance on the possibility that a future UK divorce decree might not be recognised in India.

The Court noted that the UK proceedings were still pending and that questions including the jurisdiction of the foreign court remained to be adjudicated.

In essence, the Court held that the wife's ground for divorce would have to be established before the UK Family Court and that the Indian court could not proceed on the assumption that the foreign court would necessarily grant a decree on that ground.

“…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.”, the Court said.

The Court relied upon its earlier decision in Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd. (2003), which lays down the principles governing anti-suit injunctions.

The Court reiterated that the party against whom the injunction is sought must be amenable to the personal jurisdiction of the court, and that the refusal of an injunction must be shown to defeat the ends of justice.

Also emphasising the principle of comity of courts, the Court said that the proceedings culminated at a Foreign Court cannot be restrained unless the oppressive or vexatious nature of the foreign proceedings and irreparable harm as twin prime considerations are shown.

Reference was made to the Court's earlier decision in Dinesh Singh Thakur vs. Sonal Thakur (2018), where the Court has stressed that anti-suit injunctions must be granted sparingly because they involve one court restraining proceedings before another judicial forum.

“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…”, the Court said.

In Dinesh Singh Thakur too, the suit was instituted by the wife in a foreign jurisdiction on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The Court had declined to sustain an anti-suit injunction merely because the ground invoked before the foreign court was not available under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Applying that principle, the Court held that the mere fact that the wife's UK proceedings invoked irretrievable breakdown could not, at the preliminary stage, justify restraining those proceedings.

“…the mere fact that the wife filed the case on the ground which is not available to her under the (Indian) Act, did not mean that there was a likelihood of her succeeding in getting a decree for divorce.”, the Court said in Dinesh Singh Thakur.

UK had substantial connecting factors with matrimonial dispute

The Court also agreed with the High Court's conclusion that the UK was the forum conveniens in the circumstances of the case. The Court noted that the parties had lived together in London for a substantial period and had established their matrimonial home and financial arrangements there. The husband himself had been residing in the UK since his adolescence, while the wife had also lived there for several years.

The Court found substantial connecting factors between the matrimonial dispute and the UK, including the parties' residence, their matrimonial home and their established interests there.

“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… 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 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.”, the Court held.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: MIHIR PRAKASH BAJORIA VERSUS VIDUSHI JAIN BAJORIA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 979

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Dr. A. M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Adv. Mr. Devansh Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Anushree Kapooria, Adv. Mr. Ayush Jain, Adv. Mr. Maj. Nirvikar Singh, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR

For Respondent(s) Ms. Shobha Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anjan Datta, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ranabir Ray Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Rajshri Ashutosh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Jyoti P Deborah, Adv. Ms. Ishita Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Sumon Pathak, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Verma, Adv. Mr. Rohit Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Vats, Adv. Ms. Prema Panwar, Adv. Ms. Rupali Panwar, Adv. Mr. Shubham Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra, AOR