The High Court emphasizes principles of Comity of Courts and private international law, allowing UK divorce proceedings to continue.
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has overturned an anti-suit injunction previously granted by an Indian court that sought to restrain Vidushi Jain Bajoria from pursuing divorce proceedings in the United Kingdom. The judgment, delivered by Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya, emphasized the importance of respecting the principle of Comity of Courts and private international law.
The case involves Vidushi Jain Bajoria and Sri Mihir Prakash Bajoria, both Indian citizens whose marriage took place in Kolkata according to Hindu customs. While residing in the UK, Vidushi Jain Bajoria initiated divorce proceedings there, which were challenged by Mihir Prakash Bajoria through a suit in India.
The initial order from the Alipore Court in India had granted an interim injunction, barring Vidushi from continuing her UK proceedings. This was contested on the grounds that the UK court proceedings were oppressive and that the UK court lacked jurisdiction since Vidushi was not a permanent resident there. The injunction was granted partly because the Indian divorce suit was filed earlier.
However, the Calcutta High Court found that the principles underpinning the injunction were flawed. The court noted that anti-suit injunctions must respect the Comity of Courts and the principles of private international law. The judgment highlighted that issues of jurisdiction and forum should be adjudicated by the court where the proceedings were initiated-in this case, the UK court.
The High Court also commented on the evolving legal position concerning the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce, citing that although it is not independently recognized under Indian law, it can be considered as an element of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita.
In overturning the injunction, the High Court underscored the importance of allowing the UK court to resolve jurisdictional issues without interference, as this aligns with the principles of mutual respect between jurisdictions.
The judgment reaffirms the need for judicial restraint in matters involving international litigation, and stresses that premature considerations of the conclusiveness of foreign judgments are impermissible.
Bottom Line:
Anti-suit injunction - Granting of anti-suit injunction must adhere to principles of Comity of Courts, private international law, and due legal process - Premature considerations under Section 13 of CPC regarding conclusiveness of foreign judgments at initial stages of foreign suits are impermissible.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 13 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Article 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India; Section 5(2)(b) of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act, 1973 (UK).
Vidushi Jain Bajoria v. Sri Mihir Prakash Bajoria, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2822191
