Mihir Prakash Bajoria v. Vidushi Jain Bajoria
“No Anti-Suit Injunction Against a UK Divorce: Supreme Court Says Indian Courts Must Be Slow to Halt Foreign Matrimonial Proceedings”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court dismissed a husband's appeal and upheld the Calcutta High Court's order vacating an ex-parte anti-suit injunction that the Alipore Civil Court had granted to stop his wife from pursuing divorce and maintenance proceedings before the Central Family Court in the United Kingdom. The Court held that anti-suit injunctions are not granted as a matter of course and must be issued sparingly, that the argument that a UK divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown would not be enforceable in India was premature while the foreign proceedings were pending, and that, applying forum non conveniens, the UK was the forum conveniens given the couple's long residence and matrimonial home in London. The Court relied on Dinesh Singh Thakur v. Sonal Thakur and left both parties free to challenge any final UK orders, including the conditional divorce order of 17.06.2026, before the competent forum.
The Bottom Line
An Indian court cannot easily stop a spouse from pursuing a divorce abroad. The Supreme Court ruled that an anti-suit injunction is an exceptional remedy, requiring oppression or vexation and irreparable harm, and that it should rarely be granted while the foreign proceedings are still pending and the jurisdiction question is open. Because the couple had lived mainly in London, the UK court was the appropriate forum and the husband's injunction was rightly set aside.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Marriage in Kolkata
The parties married in Kolkata as per Hindu customs and thereafter lived together in London during 2018-2020.
Marriage in Kolkata
The parties married in Kolkata as per Hindu customs and thereafter lived together in London during 2018-2020.
Wife Moves to Parental Home
After the parties began living separately under the same roof from 11.11.2023, the wife left the matrimonial residence in Kolkata for her parental home.
Wife Moves to Parental Home
After the parties began living separately under the same roof from 11.11.2023, the wife left the matrimonial residence in Kolkata for her parental home.
Husband Files Divorce Suit in Alipore
The husband instituted Matrimonial Suit No. 2643 of 2024 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Husband Files Divorce Suit in Alipore
The husband instituted Matrimonial Suit No. 2643 of 2024 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Wife Files Divorce and Financial Proceedings in UK
The wife filed UK Case No. 1727-9691-3028-3233 for dissolution of marriage and UK Case No. 1728-5776-1486-0043 for interim financial relief before the Central Family Court.
Wife Files Divorce and Financial Proceedings in UK
The wife filed UK Case No. 1727-9691-3028-3233 for dissolution of marriage and UK Case No. 1728-5776-1486-0043 for interim financial relief before the Central Family Court.
UK Court Orders Interim Maintenance
The UK Family Court directed the husband to pay interim maintenance and costs, appointed an expert on Indian law and directed that jurisdiction be decided as a preliminary issue.
UK Court Orders Interim Maintenance
The UK Family Court directed the husband to pay interim maintenance and costs, appointed an expert on Indian law and directed that jurisdiction be decided as a preliminary issue.
Alipore Court Refuses Stay of Indian Divorce Suit
The Indian court rejected the wife's Section 151 CPC application for stay of the husband's divorce suit.
Alipore Court Refuses Stay of Indian Divorce Suit
The Indian court rejected the wife's Section 151 CPC application for stay of the husband's divorce suit.
Ex-Parte Anti-Suit Injunction Granted
In Title Suit No. 1656 of 2025, the Alipore Trial Court restrained the wife from prosecuting the UK proceedings.
Ex-Parte Anti-Suit Injunction Granted
In Title Suit No. 1656 of 2025, the Alipore Trial Court restrained the wife from prosecuting the UK proceedings.
Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Injunction
The High Court allowed the wife's appeal (FMAT No. 466 of 2025) and set aside the anti-suit injunction.
Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Injunction
The High Court allowed the wife's appeal (FMAT No. 466 of 2025) and set aside the anti-suit injunction.
Conditional Divorce Decree in England
During the pendency of the appeal, an English District Judge passed a conditional divorce decree; the Supreme Court stayed proceedings pursuant to it on 30.07.2026.
Conditional Divorce Decree in England
During the pendency of the appeal, an English District Judge passed a conditional divorce decree; the Supreme Court stayed proceedings pursuant to it on 30.07.2026.
Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment vacating the anti-suit injunction.
Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment vacating the anti-suit injunction.
The Story
The parties' relationship dates back to 2014-2015, when the wife relocated to the United Kingdom for higher studies and cohabited with the husband in London. They married in Kolkata on 15.12.2018 as per Hindu customs and lived together in London during 2018-2020 at Flat 14, Academy Gardens. In February 2021 the wife left the UK and returned to India until March 2022. The husband arranged a spousal visa for her in March 2022, and the parties returned to India in October 2023, living at the husband's family residence in Kolkata. From 11.11.2023 they lived separately under the same roof, and on 16.11.2023 the wife moved to her parental home in Kolkata.
On 04.09.2024 the husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 2643 of 2024 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Alipore Family Court, seeking divorce on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. On 10.10.2024 the wife filed UK Case No. 1727-9691-3028-3233 before the Central Family Court, United Kingdom, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, together with ancillary proceedings (UK Case No. 1728-5776-1486-0043) for interim financial relief. The husband participated in the UK proceedings without submitting to jurisdiction. On 16.05.2025 the UK Family Court directed the husband to pay interim maintenance and costs, appointed a Senior Advocate as Single Joint Expert on Indian law, and directed that jurisdiction be determined as a preliminary issue. The wife later obtained permission to file a second divorce petition (28.10.2025). Meanwhile, her application to stay the Indian divorce suit was rejected on 25.09.2025.
On 31.10.2025 the husband filed Title Suit No. 1656 of 2025 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Alipore, seeking a declaration that the UK proceedings were vexatious and without jurisdiction, a permanent injunction, and Rs. 2,40,00,000 with interest at 18% per annum, including Rs. 85,00,000 towards legal expenses. On 01.11.2025 the Alipore Trial Court granted an ex-parte ad interim anti-suit injunction restraining the wife from continuing the UK proceedings. The wife then approached the High Court of England and Wales (Family Division), which on 10.11.2025 passed an ex-parte order restraining the husband from enforcing the Indian injunction. The Calcutta High Court, by judgment dated 15.12.2025 in FMAT No. 466 of 2025, allowed the wife's appeal and set aside the injunction. On 10.12.2025 the UK Family Court determined that it was the convenient forum for the divorce proceedings. The husband appealed to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, an English District Judge passed a conditional divorce decree on 17.06.2026, and on 30.07.2026 the Supreme Court stayed proceedings pursuant to that order on the husband's application.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Parallel foreign proceedings are oppressive
Senior Counsel Ms. Meenakshi Arora submitted for the husband that the Alipore Trial Court was justified in restraining the wife from prosecuting parallel proceedings before the foreign court, and exercised jurisdiction within settled parameters to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions.
Foreign proceedings rest on grounds unknown to Hindu Marriage Act
The parties are Indian citizens married under the Hindu Marriage Act, and the UK proceedings were founded on grounds not recognised under that Act, making any decree vulnerable under Section 13 CPC. Reliance was placed on Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and Kishorekumar Mohan Kale v. Kashmira Kale.
Husband's Indian proceedings were first in time
It was submitted that the husband's proceedings were earlier in point in time and that the wife later instituted the divorce and maintenance proceedings to exert pressure and subject him to parallel and inconsistent adjudication.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Non-recognition under Section 13 CPC is premature
Senior Counsel Ms. Shobha Gupta argued for the wife that the apprehension of future non-recognition of a foreign decree was premature, that recognition depends on the jurisdiction exercised and observance of natural justice rather than the nomenclature of the ground, and that Y. Narasimha Rao concerned recognition of foreign decrees after they are passed.
Anti-suit injunctions must be granted with circumspection
The power to grant an anti-suit injunction must be exercised with circumspection, only where refusal may defeat the ends of justice.
UK is the appropriate forum
The matrimonial home of the parties was in the UK, the husband had been residing there since the age of 14-15 years and returned to India only to avoid the UK divorce and financial remedy proceedings, and the husband failed to establish any circumstance justifying an anti-suit injunction.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Court began by explaining that an anti-suit injunction restrains a party before an Indian court from prosecuting proceedings in another court, including a foreign one, and is governed by equitable principles. Indian courts have the power to grant it against a party who is amenable to their personal jurisdiction, but must apply the principles from Modi Entertainment Network: amenability to personal jurisdiction, the prospect that refusal would defeat the ends of justice, and comity of courts. It cited the Delhi High Court in Raaj Unocal Lubricants that such an injunction is directed at the party and not at the foreign court. The Court identified the oppressive or vexatious nature of the proceedings and irreparable harm as twin prime considerations, and explained forum non conveniens through Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Micromax Informatics FZE, Spiliada Maritime Corporation v. Cansulex Ltd. and Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India. It stressed that the burden is on the party contending that a forum is inconvenient or the proceedings vexatious, and that frequent resort to such injunctions would undermine comity of courts. The Court found Dinesh Singh Thakur v. Sonal Thakur, in which a husband's attempt to restrain the wife's US divorce proceedings based on irretrievable breakdown was rejected, comparable to the present case. It held that the husband's Section 13 CPC argument was premature and speculative, and that, on the forum non conveniens test, the UK was the forum conveniens given the parties' prolonged life in London, the matrimonial home and financial arrangements there. It added that one factor dissuading an injunction is that the foreign proceedings are yet to conclude. It noted the 17.06.2026 conditional divorce order but confined itself to the 01.11.2025 injunction and expressed no opinion on later UK orders.
The oppressive or vexatious nature of the proceedings and irreparable harm are the twin prime considerations
Para 5.3
States the core test an Indian court must keep in mind before putting on hold a foreign judicial process.
the grant of anti-suit injunction is not a matter of course.
Para 5.5.1
Emphasises that such injunctions are not routine and must be issued with extreme restraint.
The main proceedings are pending, and all the issues are at large including the jurisdiction of that court.
Para 5.7.1
Explains why reliance on possible non-enforceability of a future UK decree was premature.
the High Court was justified in holding that the forum conveniens was the court in UK.
Para 5.8
Applies forum non conveniens to a cross-border marriage, relying on residence, matrimonial home and financial ties.
the proceedings before the foreign court which are sought to be interjected, are yet to conclude.
Para 5.9
Identifies the pendency of foreign proceedings as a factor against an anti-suit injunction.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
No injunction restrains the wife from pursuing the UK proceedings; the husband's appeal failed, though both parties remain free to challenge later UK orders in accordance with law.
Directions Issued
- The High Court's judgment and order dated 15.12.2025 vacating the anti-suit injunction was upheld
- Either party is at liberty to challenge further and final orders of the UK Family Court, including the order dated 17.06.2026 against the husband, before the competent forum on available grounds
- The Court expressed no opinion on those matters and its observations will not influence further proceedings
- All pending interlocutory applications do not survive in view of the dismissal of the appeal
Key Legal Principles Established
Indian courts have the power to grant anti-suit injunctions against a party amenable to their personal jurisdiction, but the power must be exercised sparingly and not as a matter of routine.
Oppressive or vexatious proceedings and irreparable harm are the twin prime considerations for an anti-suit injunction.
An anti-suit injunction restrains the party, not the foreign court, but still impinges on comity of courts.
The burden of proving that a forum is inconvenient or that foreign proceedings are oppressive lies on the party asserting it.
The doctrine of forum non conveniens looks to the forum in which the case can be tried more suitably for the interests of all parties and the ends of justice.
The apprehension that a future foreign decree on irretrievable breakdown may not be recognised under Section 13 CPC is premature while foreign proceedings are pending.
Foreign proceedings that are yet to conclude weigh against granting an anti-suit injunction.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- If your spouse files for divorce abroad, an Indian court will not easily order them to stop, particularly if the couple lived abroad.
- Filing a divorce case in India first does not by itself stop a spouse from continuing a case in another country.
- Where a couple lived, held property and built their married life can decide which country is the more suitable forum.
- Interim maintenance ordered by a foreign court can create rights for the spouse that Indian courts are reluctant to disturb at an early stage.
- The outcome of foreign orders can still be challenged later before the competent forum.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Statutory Provisions
Section 13
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
“Provides when a foreign judgment shall not be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon.”
Relevance: The husband argued that a UK decree on irretrievable breakdown would not be enforceable in India under Section 13; the Court held this ground premature.
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
“Provisions governing temporary injunctions and the inherent powers of the court.”
Relevance: The husband sought the anti-suit injunction through an application under these provisions in Title Suit No. 1656 of 2025.
Section 13
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
“Provides grounds for divorce.”
Relevance: The husband's Indian divorce suit was filed under Section 13; the wife's foreign petition relied on irretrievable breakdown, a ground not independently listed under this Act.
Section 5(2)(d)
Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act, 1973 (UK)
“Habitual residence of a party for one year prior to filing of a divorce petition as a basis for jurisdiction of English courts.”
Relevance: The High Court noted that whether the wife met this requirement was arguable and for the appropriate forum to adjudicate.
Related Cases & Precedents
Dinesh Singh Thakur v. Sonal Thakur
followed(2018) 17 SCC 12
Anti-suit injunctions should be granted sparingly; the husband's attempt to restrain the wife's divorce proceedings in a US court on the ground of irretrievable breakdown was rejected. Held comparable to the present case.
Modi Entertainment Network & Anr. v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd.
followed(2003) 4 SCC 341
Set out the principles for anti-suit injunctions: amenability to personal jurisdiction, ends of justice, and comity of courts.
Arif Azim Company Limited v. Micromax Informatics FZE
cited(2025) 9 SCC 750
Explained the doctrine of forum non conveniens and the requirement of an adequate alternative forum.
Y. Narasimha Rao & Ors. v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi & Anr.
distinguished(1991) 3 SCC 451
Concerned recognition and conclusiveness of foreign matrimonial decrees after they are passed; relied on by the husband but held not to support restraining pending foreign proceedings, as argued by the wife.
Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr.
cited2026 SCC OnLine SC 1098
Explained that forum non conveniens applies where multiple fora are available for the same remedy.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Kannada
Mihir Prakash Bajoria v. Vidushi Jain Bajoria - Kannada Explanation
Tamil
Mihir Prakash Bajoria v. Vidushi Jain Bajoria - Tamil Explanation
Telugu
Mihir Prakash Bajoria v. Vidushi Jain Bajoria - Telugu Explanation
Hindi
Mihir Prakash Bajoria v. Vidushi Jain Bajoria - Hindi Explanation
English
Mihir Prakash Bajoria v. Vidushi Jain Bajoria - English Explanation
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit
2025 INSC 20
When Children Fail Their Parents, the Law Steps In to Protect Senior Citizens
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun
2023 INSC 783
The Landmark Ruling on Property Rights of Children from Void Marriages
Surya Vadanan v. State of Tamil Nadu
(2015) 5 SCC 450
When Borders Cannot Shield a Parent Who Flees with Children
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena
(2015) 6 SCC 353
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied - The Call for Swift Maintenance Orders
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.