Section 311 CrPC Power Cannot Be Exercised To Fill Lacunae In Defence Or Cause Undue Hardship To Rape Victims: Supreme Court Subsequent FIR Must Be Clubbed With Previous FIR To Avoid Parallel Investigation: Supreme Court Modifies Order In Amit Katyal Case EPFO Cannot Apply Pro-Rata Formula To Calculate Pension On Higher Wages Via Executive Circulars: Punjab & Haryana High Court 45 Years After Incident, Allahabad High Court Reduces Sentence Of Octogenarians To Period Already Undergone Judicial Magistrates Lack Jurisdiction To Adjudicate Possession Of Immovable Property Under Police Act; 'Property' Refers Only To Movables: Calcutta High Court Mere Threat Not Enough For Criminal Intimidation; Proof Of 'Alarm' To Victim Necessary For Section 506 IPC Conviction: Delhi High Court Private Unaided Schools Not 'Local Authorities', Teachers Can't Be Compulsorily Deployed For Census Duties: Bombay High Court Suits Erroneously Filed As Non-Commercial Can Be Transferred To Commercial Courts Under Section 24 CPC To Save Proceedings: Delhi High Court Suit For Declaration Not Barred Under Section 34 Specific Relief Act If Plaintiff Remains In Possession Of Property: Gauhati High Court Signed Physical Verification Report Acknowledging Stock Shortage Is A Binding Admission Of Misconduct; Regular Inquiry Can Be Dispensed With: Punjab & Haryana HC Gratuitous License For Commercial Property Is A 'Commercial Dispute' Under Commercial Courts Act: Delhi High Court Absence Of Driving License By Victim Doesn't Absolve Accused Driver Of Negligence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Prosecution's Failure To Examine Chemical Examiner To Corroborate Report Is A Serious Infirmity In NDPS Trials: Orissa High Court 125 CrPC | Prolonged Jail For Maintenance Arrears Frustrates Law's Object By Depriving Debtor Of Earning Capacity: Madhya Pradesh High Court Guest Lecturers Appointed At College Level Have No Right To Regularization; State Can Revise Policy To Prioritize Competitive Exams: Madras High Court Courts Cannot Usurp Executive Power To Fix Pay Scales, But State Must Expeditiously Frame Service Rules For Pre-Primary Staff: Kerala High Court Superior Police Officers Can Order Further Investigation Before Charge-Sheet Filed In Court: Rajasthan 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