Wife Files Writ Petition In Supreme Court To Restrain Husband's Divorce Proceedings In USA

An Indian woman has approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging divorce proceedings initiated by her husband before a Family Court in the State of Rhode Island in the United States, alleging that the foreign proceedings are without jurisdiction and violate her fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.“The foreign divorce proceedings are ex facie without jurisdiction, oppressive, and constitutionally impermissible. They are being employed as an instrument of coercion, extortion, and-economic abuse, directly violating the law laid down by this Honble Court in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi, (1991) 3 SCC 451, which mandates that matrimonial disputes must be adjudicated by courts of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the governing personal law and domicile of the parties”, the plea states.The writ petition has been filed by a resident of Kanniyakumari district in Tamil Nadu though Advocate on Record Subhasish Bhowmick. She has arrayed the Union of India, her husband, and the Embassy of the United States of America in India as respondents.The petition asserts that ordinary civil or family court remedies in India are inadequate to restrain an ongoing foreign process and that recourse to Article 32 is the only efficacious remedy to prevent irreparable constitutional injury.The petitioner has sought declaration that any decree passed by the foreign court shall be null, void, and unenforceable in India, and direction to the Union of India to take appropriate diplomatic and protective measures to safeguard her rights.According to the petition, the marriage between was solemnised on January 06, 2023 at Devakottai, Tamil Nadu, in accordance with Indian Christian rites. The marriage was registered on January 09, 2023, under the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act, 2009. The petitioner states that the marriage is governed exclusively by the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, and that she is permanently domiciled in India.The petitioner alleges that after being taken to the United States on a dependent visa, she was subjected to physical violence, emotional abuse, and economic exploitation, and was forced to part with her Indian property, stridhan, gold jewellery, documents, and joint locker articles. She states that after her dependent visa expired on July 18, 2024, leaving her without lawful immigration status, she was pressurised her further, and that even after returning to India in March 2024 she continued to face demands to transfer her Indian property.The petitioner alleges that in September 2025, her husband brought her to India, abandoned her, and returned alone to the United States. She states that on October 28, 2025, he blocked all communication with her. The petition further claims that in December 2025, the husband and his father assured reconciliation and sought a compromise, inducing her not to initiate legal proceedings in India.Despite this, the petition alleges, the husband clandestinely instituted divorce proceedings on October 30, 2025, before the Family Court in the State of Rhode Island without the petitioner's consent and submission to its jurisdiction.The petition contends that the foreign divorce proceedings are without jurisdiction, oppressive, and constitutionally impermissible. It relies on the Supreme Court's judgment in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi (1991) 3 SCC 451 to argue that a foreign matrimonial judgment is not binding in India unless the court has jurisdiction under the personal law governing the parties and the parties voluntarily submit to that jurisdiction.“in the present case, the marriage is governed exclusively by the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, the Petitioner never voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the Rhode Island Family Court, and the foreign proceedings are founded on grounds alien to Indian Christian matrimonial law. Hence, the proceedings are ex facie without jurisdiction and void in India”, the plea states.The petitioner has also relied on various precedents to contend that Indian courts can restrain foreign proceedings that are oppressive or vexatious.

Wife Files Writ Petition In Supreme Court To Restrain Husband's Divorce Proceedings In USA

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags