Specific Relief Act, 1963:
s.41 – Injunction – Refusal of – When – Petition u/ss. 13 and
26 of Hindu Marriage Act – By husband – Pending adjudication, petition seeking divorce filed by wife in the Court in USA – Suit filed by husband seeking permanent injuction (anti-suit injunction) to restrain the wife from pursuing the petition before the Court in USA – Ex-parte ad interim injunction granted – Therfeafter, on application by wife, injunction vacated – The order was further confirmed by High Court – On appeal, held: Both the parties are permanent citizens of USA – Courts in India as well as in USA have concurrent jurisdiction – Though wife is amenable to jurisdiction of Family Court in India, there is nothing on record to hold that other party could suffer grave injustice if injunction is not granted – Proceedings in the Foreign Court cannot be said to be oppressive or vexatious – Injunction – Equity – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – ss. 13 and 26 – Jurisdiction.
Injunction:
Anti-suit injunction – Held: Such injunction is meant to restrain a party to a suit/proceedings from instituting or prosecuting a case in another court outside its jurisdiction, including a Foreign Court – Principles governing grant of injunction are common to that of granting anti-suit injunction – Cases of injunction are basically governed by doctrine of equity – Courts in India have the power to issue anti-suit injunction – However, before issuing such injunction, Courts should be very cautious and careful – It should be granted sparingly.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Anti-Suit Injunctions are meant to restrain a party to a suit/proceeding from instituting or prosecuting a case in another court, including a foreign court. An anti-suit injunction is a judicial order restraining one party from prosecuting a case in another court outside its jurisdiction. The principles governing grant of injunction are common to that of granting anti-suit injunction. The cases of injunction are basically governed by the doctrine of equity. [Para 9] [474-E]
2. The courts in India have power to issue anti-suit injunction to a party over whom it has personal jurisdiction, in an appropriate case. However, before passing the order of anti-suit injunction, courts should be very cautious and careful, and it should be granted sparingly and not as a matter of routine as such orders involve a court impinging on the jurisdiction of another court, which is not entertained very easily specially when it restrains the parties from instituting or continuing a case in a foreign court. [Para 10]474-F-G]
3. Though the respondent-wife is amenable to the jurisdiction of Family Court in India, there is nothing on record to hold that the other party will suffer grave injustice if the injunction is not granted. There is no dispute to the fact that both the parties are permanent citizens of USA. Undisputedly, the Court in USA is also having the concurrent jurisdiction in the given case. The appellant-husband himself has been residing in USA after 2007 and the proceedings for grant of anti-suit injunction were initiated by him in India through another person by empowering him through a power of attorney to file and pursue the disputed litigation on his behalf. Further, there is nothing brought on record to show how he would suffer grave injustice if the injunction restraining the respondent-wife from pursuing the divorce petition in USA, is not granted. Still further, even if the injunction is declined, it cannot be said that the ends of justice will be defeated and injustice will be perpetuated. [Para 18] [477G-H; 478-A-B]
4. The mere fact that the respondent-wife has filed the case on the ground which is not available to her under the Act, doesn’t mean that there are likelihood of her succeeding in getting a decree for divorce, specifically, in view of the fact that the appellant has raised this contention before the Court in USA and both the parties will produce evidence with regard to the question whether their marriage is governed by the Act or any other law. Foreign court cannot be presumed to be exercising its jurisdiction wrongly even after the appellant being able to prove that the parties in the present case, continued to be governed by the law governing Hindus in India in the matter of dispute between them. The proceedings in the Foreign Court cannot be said to be oppressive or vexatious. [Paras 19, 20 and 21] [[478-D-F]
Rakesh Kumar vs. Ms. Ashima Kumar AIR 2007 P&H
63; Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Western
Company of North America (1987) 1 SCC 496 : [1987]
1 SCR 1024; Modi Entertainment Network and Another v. WSG Cricket PTE Ltd. (2003) 4 SCC 341 : [2003] 1 SCR 480; Vivek Rai Gupta v. Niyati Gupta [2008] 1 SCR 1069; Harmeeta Singh v. Rajat Taneja 2003 (67) DRJ 58; Y. Narasimha Rao & Others v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and Another (1991) 3 SCC 451 : [1991] 2 SCR 821 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.