The Supreme Court has held that Indian courts cannot issue an anti-suit injunction simply because a foreign court might eventually pass a matrimonial decree on a ground that may not be recognised under Indian law.
A bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria upheld the Calcutta High Court’s decision to set aside an anti-suit injunction that had restrained a woman from pursuing matrimonial and maintenance proceedings before the Family Court in London.
The Court stressed that anti-suit injunctions are an exceptional remedy and cannot become a routine response to the possibility of an unfavourable outcome in foreign proceedings.
Dispute between husband and wife
The couple married in Kolkata in December 2018 under Hindu rites and subsequently lived in London, where the wife had moved for higher studies.
After returning to India in October 2023, the parties began living separately. The husband then filed divorce proceedings before the Alipore court under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The wife, meanwhile, approached the UK Family Court seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown and also sought interim financial relief.
The English proceedings became entangled in questions concerning jurisdiction and the appropriate forum. While those issues were pending, the husband approached the Alipore civil court seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration that the proceedings in the UK were vexatious and without jurisdiction.
On November 1, 2025, the trial court passed an ex parte anti-suit injunction preventing the wife from continuing with the proceedings in London.
One of the key reasons cited was that irretrievable breakdown is not, by itself, a statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The trial court therefore proceeded on the basis that a decree granted in the UK on that ground might not be recognised in India under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Calcutta High Court lifts injunction
The Calcutta High Court subsequently overturned the injunction.
It observed that questions concerning whether the UK was an appropriate forum, including the issue of forum non conveniens, were matters that had to be considered by the English court. The wife’s habitual residence and the jurisdiction of the UK Family Court also remained matters for determination.
The High Court further noted that the UK proceedings had already been stayed while the jurisdictional question was being examined.
The husband then challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court rejects speculative approach
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s ruling.
The bench noted that the proceedings before the UK Family Court were still pending and that the foreign court had yet to determine important questions concerning its jurisdiction.
The Court held that Indian courts could not assume in advance that the UK court would grant a divorce decree on a particular ground or that such a decree would ultimately be incapable of recognition in India.
In substance, the Court said that the wife would first have to establish her case before the foreign court and that the possibility of an eventual decree could not, by itself, justify stopping the proceedings.
The judgment observed that a foreign court cannot simply be presumed to be exercising its jurisdiction incorrectly merely because the parties may continue to be governed by Hindu personal law in relation to their matrimonial dispute.
Anti-suit injunctions require more than a possibility of harm
The Supreme Court relied on its earlier ruling in Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd., which sets out the principles governing anti-suit injunctions.
Among the considerations is whether the person against whom the injunction is sought falls within the personal jurisdiction of the Indian court and whether allowing the foreign proceedings to continue would defeat the ends of justice.
The Court also underscored the importance of judicial comity. Proceedings before a foreign court should not ordinarily be restrained unless the circumstances demonstrate that the foreign litigation is oppressive or vexatious and that allowing it to continue would result in irreparable harm.
The ruling therefore makes clear that the mere prospect of a foreign decree creating enforcement difficulties in India cannot, without more, justify an anti-suit injunction.
The Supreme Court consequently dismissed the husband’s appeal and allowed the UK proceedings to remain subject to determination by the foreign court on the questions pending before it.
