Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

Delhi High Court Upholds Jurisdictional Flexibility in Cross-Border Divorce Case: Emphasizes Comity of Courts and Forum Conveniens Principles”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal in a cross-border matrimonial dispute, emphasizing the principles of ‘comity of courts’ and ‘forum conveniens’. The case, MAT.APP.(F.C.) 365/2023, involved a dispute over the jurisdiction between Indian and Canadian courts in the divorce proceedings of an Indian couple holding Canadian permanent residency.

The appellant, Damini Manchanda, challenged the Family Court’s decision to dismiss her application seeking an interim injunction to restrain her husband, Avinash Bhambhani, from proceeding with a divorce petition in Canada. Represented by Ms. Preeti Singh, the appellant argued that the Indian courts should have jurisdiction, citing their Indian citizenship and the potential for more comprehensive relief under Indian laws.

However, the High Court, comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, upheld the Family Court’s decision. The Court noted, “None of the parties are currently residing in India. The doctrine of forum conveniens... would make it clear that the Court in Canada is the appropriate and convenient forum for the parties to pursue their reliefs.”

The Court’s decision was significantly influenced by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Modi Entertainment Network and Anr. The judgment highlighted that “the relief of anti-suit injunction being discretionary in nature, a Court must consider the following aspects: a) The defendant against whom the injunction is being sought must be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court. B) Refusal to grant the injunction would cause grave prejudice and the ends of justice will be defeated. C) The principle of comity of courts must be borne in mind and due respect must be given to the Court in which the proceedings is sought to be restrained.”

This judgment is a landmark in understanding the nuances of jurisdictional issues in transnational matrimonial disputes and underscores the importance of considering the convenience and competence of foreign courts in such matters. The High Court’s decision paves the way for a more flexible approach in dealing with cross-border legal disputes, especially in the context of family law.

Date of Decision: 19th December 2023

DAMINI MANCHANDA VS AVINASH BHAMBHANI

 

Latest Legal News