Cross-border marriages increasingly produce cross-border divorces — and with them, the tactical race to court. On 22 September 2026, a Bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti in Mihir Prakash Bajoria v. Vidushi Jain Bajoria (arising out of SLP (C) No. 15849 of 2026) declined a husband's plea to restrain his wife from pursuing divorce and maintenance proceedings before the UK Family Court, even though his own petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was pending before the Family Court at Alipore.
Two petitions, two countries
The parties, Indian citizens, married in 2018 and set up their matrimonial home in London, living there from 2018 to 2020 and again from March 2022 until they separated in November 2023. In 2024 the husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court at Alipore. The wife, for her part, initiated divorce and financial remedy proceedings before the UK Family Court on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The husband then obtained an anti-suit injunction from the Alipore court restraining the wife from proceeding in the UK. The High Court vacated that injunction, and the husband carried the matter to the Supreme Court.
The governing principles
Caution first. Anti-suit injunctions are granted sparingly and never as a matter of routine, because "such orders involve a court impinging on the jurisdiction of another court."
Forum conveniens. Where more than one forum is available, the court asks which is the natural and appropriate forum, looking at where the marriage was lived, where the parties reside and where the evidence lies.
No speculative vetoes. That the foreign petition rests on a ground unknown to the Hindu Marriage Act is not, by itself, reason to restrain it; the validity and recognisability of any eventual decree is a question for a later stage.
Comity matters. Restraint of foreign proceedings requires proof that they are oppressive or vexatious — mere parallel litigation and inconvenience are not enough.
What the Court decided
Applying the principles settled in Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte Ltd. and Dinesh Singh Thakur v. Sonal Thakur, the Bench found that the couple's substantial connections were with London — the matrimonial home, the years of cohabitation, the separation itself. The UK Family Court was therefore a forum conveniens for the wife's petition, and the Alipore court's injunction could not stand. The Court emphasised that "the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies only where multiple fora are available to a litigant for seeking the same remedy," and that grounds of divorce "must be assessed at trial conclusion, not speculatively." The appeal was dismissed and the vacation of the anti-suit injunction affirmed.
The judgment does not leave the husband remediless: his Alipore petition continues, and if the UK court eventually grants a decree, its recognition in India will be tested under Section 13 CPC and Y. Narasimha Rao. What he could not do was stop the wife's chosen forum in advance.
Practical guidance for NRI matrimonial disputes
| Question | What courts will examine |
|---|---|
| Which court is the natural forum? | Where the matrimonial home was established, where the parties last lived together, where children reside, where assets and evidence are located. |
| Is the foreign case oppressive? | Duplication alone is not oppression. There must be demonstrable injustice — for instance, a forum chosen only to defeat the other spouse\'s rights. |
| Who filed first? | Priority in time is a factor, not a trump. An earlier Indian petition does not automatically entitle a spouse to an anti-suit injunction. |
| What about the eventual foreign decree? | Its recognition in India is examined later under Section 13 CPC — including whether the ground of divorce is recognised by the personal law of the parties. |
For families split between Delhi and a foreign jurisdiction, the message is consistent with the modern trend: Indian courts will protect their own jurisdiction, but they will not weaponise it. A spouse who wants to contest the foreign proceedings must ordinarily do so there, keeping the Indian objections — jurisdiction, grounds, recognition — in reserve for the stage at which the foreign decree is actually set up in India.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an anti-suit injunction?
It is an order by which a court restrains a party before it from instituting or continuing proceedings in another court, including a foreign court. Although the order operates against the party and not the foreign court, Indian law recognises that it indirectly interferes with the jurisdiction of another forum, which is why the Supreme Court has repeatedly said such injunctions must be granted sparingly and with great caution.
Can an Indian spouse always block foreign divorce proceedings?
No. The court examines whether the foreign court is a forum conveniens — the natural and appropriate forum — and whether allowing the foreign proceedings would cause grave injustice. In Bajoria, the couple had established their matrimonial home in London and had substantial connections with the UK, so the wife's UK petition was allowed to proceed despite the husband's earlier Indian petition.
Does it matter that the foreign court applies different divorce grounds?
The husband argued that the UK petition rested on irretrievable breakdown, which is not a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court held that objections about the grounds of divorce and the recognisability of any eventual foreign decree are to be assessed at the appropriate stage, not used to speculatively strangle the foreign proceedings at the threshold.
Will a foreign divorce decree be recognised in India?
Recognition is governed by Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the principles in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi. A foreign matrimonial decree may be refused recognition in India if, among other things, it was not rendered on grounds recognised by the law under which the parties married, or was obtained without the respondent submitting to the jurisdiction. That question, however, arises when the decree is set up in India — it is a shield to be examined later, not a sword to stop the foreign case in advance.