Anti-suit injunctions against foreign matrimonial proceedings must be granted sparingly, Supreme Court holds while allowing UK divorce case to continue

The parties, married in Kolkata on 15 December 2018 under Hindu rites, lived together for substantial periods in London, where they had established their matrimonial home and financial interests.

After separating in November 2023, the husband instituted a divorce petition before the Alipore Family Court under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on 4 September 2024, alleging irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

The wife subsequently initiated divorce and ancillary financial-relief proceedings before the UK Family Court on 10 October 2024, also relying on irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

The husband participated in the UK proceedings while disputing jurisdiction. The UK Family Court ordered interim maintenance and costs, appointed an expert on Indian law, and directed that jurisdiction/forum be determined as a preliminary issue.

The Indian Family Court rejected the wife’s application to stay the Indian divorce proceedings under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).

On 31 October 2025, the husband instituted a separate title suit seeking a declaration that the UK proceedings were vexatious and without jurisdiction, permanent injunction, and recovery of amounts allegedly paid pursuant to the UK orders.

The Alipore Trial Court granted an ex parte anti-suit injunction restraining the wife from prosecuting the UK matrimonial and financial proceedings.

The Calcutta High Court set aside that injunction on 15 December 2025, holding, inter alia, that the UK was a potentially appropriate forum and that the issues of jurisdiction and recognition remained pending.

Whether the Alipore Trial Court was justified in granting an anti-suit injunction restraining the wife from prosecuting pending matrimonial and financial proceedings before the UK Family Court

Whether the possibility that a future UK divorce decree based on irretrievable breakdown might not be recognised in India under Section 13 CPC justified intervention at the interlocutory stage

Whether, applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens and comity of courts, the UK was the more appropriate forum for adjudicating the parties’ matrimonial dispute

Indian courts may issue anti-suit injunctions against a party subject to their personal jurisdiction, but such relief is exceptional and must be exercised with great caution.

Under the principles stated in Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd., the court must consider whether refusal of relief would defeat the ends of justice, whether the foreign proceedings are oppressive or vexatious, which forum is more convenient, and the requirements of judicial comity.

The burden ordinarily lies on the applicant to establish that the foreign proceedings are oppressive, vexatious, or before a forum non conveniens.

The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits the court seized of proceedings to decline jurisdiction where another adequate and more appropriate forum exists; it is particularly relevant in cross-border matrimonial disputes.

Anti-suit injunctions restrain the litigant, not the foreign court, and must be granted sparingly because they risk interfering with the jurisdiction and sovereignty of another court.

Relying on Dinesh Singh Thakur v. Sonal Thakur, the Court held that the mere fact that a foreign divorce proceeding invokes a ground not available under the Hindu Marriage Act does not justify restraining the foreign proceeding.

The possible non-recognition of a future foreign decree under Section 13 CPC is ordinarily a matter to be considered after the decree, and not a sufficient basis for prematurely halting pending proceedings.

The husband failed to establish the exceptional circumstances necessary for an anti-suit injunction.

The UK proceedings were still pending, and the UK Family Court was itself examining jurisdiction and forum; therefore, the Indian court could not assume that the UK court would ultimately exercise jurisdiction improperly or grant an unenforceable decree.

The argument based on irretrievable breakdown was speculative and premature because the wife had yet to establish the basis for relief and no final decree had been passed when the injunction was granted.

The parties had lived together in London for substantial periods, had made London their matrimonial home, and had established significant residential, personal, and financial connections there. These factors constituted substantial connecting factors supporting the UK as the forum conveniens.

The pendency of an Indian matrimonial proceeding, or the fact that it was filed earlier, did not by itself make the foreign proceedings oppressive or vexatious.

Granting the injunction would improperly interfere with the UK Family Court’s jurisdiction and undermine comity between courts.

It held that the injunction was unwarranted because the foreign proceedings were pending at an interlocutory stage, the UK was substantially connected with the parties’ matrimonial life, and the husband’s objection based on the possible future non-recognition of a UK decree was premature.

The parties remained free to challenge any final or further orders of the UK Family Court before the competent forum; the Supreme Court expressed no opinion on the merits or enforceability of any subsequent UK decree.