Supreme Court Holds Allottees Who Elected RERA Remedy Cannot Subsequently Seek Interim Relief Under Section 9 Arbitration Act Lodging FIR Does Not Amount To Instigation: Supreme Court Quashes Section 306 IPC Case Against In-Laws Over Husband's Suicide Vigilant Citizen Deserves Acknowledgment: Supreme Court Sets Strict Timelines For 20-Year-Old Subway Project, Lauds Litigant's Relentless Legal Battle Lawyer Cannot Disclose Privileged Information On TV Even If Client Becomes Adversary: Supreme Court Upholds Suspension Of Advocate Rizwan Siddique, Slaps ₹5 Lakh Cost On Both Parties Supreme Court Modifies 3-Year Bar Practice Rule; Orders 1-Year Practice Coupled With 2-Year Academy Training & Clerkship Model Made A Scapegoat Under Pressure Of Public Outcry: Delhi High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life In POCSO Case Doctrine Of Lis Pendens Applies To Court Auctions; Purchaser Bound By Outcome Of Pending Specific Performance Suit: Allahabad High Court Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Section 65B Evidence Act Objection Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal Two-Month Time Limit To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Of Trade Marks Rules 2017 Is Mandatory; Non-Compliance Results In Deemed Abandonment: Madras High Court SEBI Act | Special Law Overrides General Law': Bombay High Court Quashes Police FIR Against Ex-Axis Mutual Fund Chief Dealer In Front-Running Case 'Truth Cannot Be Sacrificed At The Altar Of Rigid Timelines': Calcutta High Court Upholds Section 311 CrPC Powers At Any Stage For Just Decision 'A Dispute Does Not Cease To Be Criminal Merely Because It Involves Commercial Transaction': Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Quash Cheating FIR In ₹4.39 Cr Land Deal Holding In Designated Centres Only Way If Foreigner Cannot Be Expelled: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail To Declared Foreigner Who Illegally Re-Entered India Madras High Court Issues Guidelines Against Police Harassment Under Guise Of Enquiry, Mandates Written Summons Under Section 179 BNSS Grave Ramifications On Rights': Punjab & Haryana High Court Mandates Strict Compliance Of Section 82 CrPC Before Declaring Accused As Proclaimed Person 'Interacting With Father Benefits Child's Well-Being': Kerala High Court Grants Virtual Access To Father After Mother Takes Child Abroad Violating Restraint Order Agreement In Family Member’s Name Cannot Shield Occupants Under Section 53-A TP Act': Uttarakhand High Court Upholds Eviction Of Licensees Not Filling A Lacuna: Subsequent Forensic Report From Criminal Case Can Be Produced As Additional Evidence In Civil Suit: Punjab & Haryana 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