No Anti-Suit Injunction Against a Pending Foreign Divorce Case at an Inchoate Stage — Supreme Court

The parties married in Kolkata in December 2018 under Hindu customs and lived for most of their married life in London. The husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Alipore court in September 2024. In October 2024 the wife filed for divorce before the UK Family Court on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, along with a claim for interim financial relief. The UK court ordered interim maintenance and costs and took up jurisdiction as a preliminary issue; the Alipore court, for its part, rejected the wife’s request to stay the Indian divorce case.

The husband then filed a title suit at Alipore seeking a declaration that the UK proceedings were vexatious and without jurisdiction, recovery of the amounts he had paid under the UK orders, and an anti-suit injunction. The trial court granted an ex parte injunction, reasoning that irretrievable breakdown is not a ground for divorce under Indian law and that a UK decree would not be enforceable under Section 13 CPC. The English High Court (Family Division) then restrained the husband from relying on the Indian injunction. During the pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court, a conditional divorce order was passed in England on 17.06.2026, which the Supreme Court stayed on 30.07.2026 on the husband’s application.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly set aside the anti-suit injunction. The husband’s ground — that a UK decree on irretrievable breakdown would not be recognised in India — was premature and speculative, because the UK proceedings were pending, all issues including jurisdiction were at large, and the wife had yet to prove her ground on evidence.

Applying forum non conveniens, the Court agreed that the UK court was the convenient forum: the parties had lived together in London, the matrimonial home and financial arrangements were there, and the husband himself had lived in the UK since the age of 14–15. It also held that an injunction against foreign proceedings which are at an inchoate stage and have not culminated in a final decision is a patent error. The appeal was dismissed, with liberty to both sides to challenge further or final UK orders before the competent forum.

The judgment follows Modi Entertainment Network (2003) and Dinesh Singh Thakur (2018) on the restraint required in granting anti-suit injunctions, and applies the forum non conveniens analysis of Arif Azim (2025). It notes the Delhi High Court’s explanation in Raaj Unocal Lubricants that an anti-suit injunction operates on the party, not on the foreign court. The husband relied on Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi, (1991) 3 SCC 451 on recognition of foreign matrimonial decrees; the Court treated that question as premature at the injunction stage, leaving recognition to be tested when a decree is actually passed.

For Indian spouses facing matrimonial proceedings abroad, this judgment makes an anti-suit injunction difficult to obtain merely because the foreign ground (such as irretrievable breakdown) is not available under the Hindu Marriage Act. The better course is usually to contest jurisdiction before the foreign court and, if a decree is passed, to question its recognition in India under Section 13 CPC and Y. Narasimha Rao.

Where an injunction is sought, the pleadings must show concrete oppression or vexation, the defendant’s amenability to Indian jurisdiction, and why India, not the foreign country, is the natural forum on the facts of residence and matrimonial life. This note is shared for general legal awareness and is not legal advice.