Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

“Forum Non Conveniens Cannot Be Used to Restrain Foreign Proceedings – Indian Court Cannot Sit in Judgment Over UK Court’s Jurisdiction,” In a landmark judgment Calcutta High Court set aside an ad interim anti-suit injunction passed by a lower court that had restrained a wife from continuing with her divorce and maintenance proceedings before the UK Family Court. The Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya, in Vidushi Jain Bajoria v. Mihir Prakash Bajoria, held that such injunctions, especially when aimed at foreign courts, must be granted with extreme caution and only in limited circumstances.

The Court held that the Alipore Court acted without jurisdiction and disregarded well-established principles of private international law and comity of courts when it restrained the wife from proceeding with her divorce case in the UK, especially when the UK court had already seized jurisdiction and had fixed a hearing on the issue of forum and competence.

“Forum of Convenience Must Be Determined By the Foreign Court, Not the Indian One”

Rejecting the husband’s argument that India was the proper forum, the Court clarified:

“It is not for another court, which is considered by one of the parties to be the convenient forum, to usurp the jurisdiction of the court where the proceeding is instituted and declare itself to be the convenient forum.”

This observation decisively answered the core issue — whether an Indian court can injunct proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction by declaring itself as the more appropriate forum. The answer, the Court held, is no.

The Court also noted that both parties had substantial residential and financial links with the UK. The wife had been residing in the UK since 2015, and the husband held senior leadership positions in a UK-based company. He had even actively participated in the UK court proceedings by filing responses and giving evidence.

“Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Recognized as a Form of Cruelty Under Indian Law”

A major contention raised by the husband was that the UK divorce was based on “irretrievable breakdown of marriage”, which, he claimed, was not a valid ground under Indian law.

Rejecting this premise, the Division Bench held: “The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, (2023) 17 SCC 433, has categorically held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage can constitute ‘cruelty’ under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Hence, it is a ground for divorce under Indian law.”

The Court distinguished the decision in Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, noting that it did not overrule Rakesh Raman. Instead, the Court emphasized that Rakesh Raman constitutes binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution and clarifies Indian law on this issue.

“On a Dylanish note, we can only observe that ‘The Times They Are A-Changin'’ — and it is too early to draw a terminus on the debate on such issue.”

“Comity of Courts Demands Judicial Restraint”

Strongly reaffirming the principle of comity of courts, the High Court rebuked the lower court’s approach of “sitting in judgment over a maintenance order passed by a foreign court of coordinate jurisdiction.”

It held: “Although the judgment delivered by the UK High Court is a tad bit disturbing for appearing to sit in judgment over the Indian court’s injunction, the learned Trial Judge in India committed the same error by questioning the UK court’s maintenance order.”

The Division Bench stressed that both the UK and Indian courts are original forums, and neither has the authority to question the other's competence at this stage.

“Section 10 CPC Does Not Apply To Foreign Proceedings”

The Court clarified that Section 10 CPC, which governs stay of proceedings when a matter is already pending in another court, does not apply to foreign courts.

“The mere earlier institution of the husband’s suit would not be sufficient to pass an order of stay of the foreign suit. Section 10 mandates the court before which the subsequent suit has been filed to stay such suit — it does not empower the court where the earlier proceeding was initiated to pass such an order.”

This clarification dismantled one of the trial court's key reasons for granting the anti-suit injunction.

UK Court Competent To Decide Its Jurisdiction

The Bench also emphasized that the UK Family Court had already scheduled a hearing to determine its jurisdiction, and had stayed the proceedings till then. Thus, there was no ground for the Indian court to interfere at such an early stage.

“The UK court is fairly proceeding in due process of law. It would be inappropriate and premature for us to comment on the said issue at this stage.”

The judgment urged Indian courts to defer to such ongoing jurisdictional adjudication before a foreign court, especially in matrimonial disputes involving cross-border jurisdictional overlaps.

Injunction Order Set Aside, Appeal Allowed

The Court held that the interim anti-suit injunction dated 01/11/2025 granted by the Alipore Civil Judge was:

• Legally unsustainable under both Indian and international law.

• Contrary to the comity of courts.

• Premature, as the UK court was yet to decide on its jurisdiction.

• Unsupported by CPC, since Section 10 does not apply to foreign suits.

Accordingly, it allowed the appeal, set aside the injunction, and made clear that:

“None of the above observations shall operate to the prejudice of the parties in any proceeding before any forum… and are only of a tentative nature.”

A request by the respondent-husband to stay the operation of the judgment was also rejected, with the Court noting that such a stay would defeat the very reasoning behind its decision.

Date of Decision: 15 December 2025