Section 13 CPC | Anti-suit injunction barred when foreign forum convenient and proceedings pending : SC

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to set aside an anti-suit injunction that had restrained a wife from pursuing divorce proceedings in the UK Family Court, holding that the doctrine of forum non conveniens and the principle of comity of courts barred such injunction when the foreign forum was the convenient forum and the proceedings were still pending.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The dispute arose from the matrimonial relationship between Mihir Prakash Bajoria (appellant-husband) and Vidushi Jain Bajoria (respondent-wife), who married in Kolkata on 15 December 2018 under Hindu customs and thereafter resided together in London at Flat 14, Academy Gardens, Kensington from 2018 to 2020. After the wife returned to India for studies in February 2021 and the couple began living separately under the same roof from 11 November 2023, the husband filed a divorce suit before the Alipore Family Court on 4 September 2024, while the wife simultaneously initiated divorce and maintenance proceedings before the UK Family Court on 10 October 2024.

Key Facts

• The parties cohabited in London during 2018-2020 at Flat 14, Academy Gardens, London W8 7QQ.
• In February 2021 the wife left the UK and remained in India until March 2022, studying Pranic healing at an ashram.
• In March 2022 the husband arranged a spousal visa for the wife to resume matrimonial life in the UK.
• The parties returned to India in October 2023 and resided together at the husband’s family residence in Kolkata.
• From 11 November 2023 they lived separately though under the same roof; on 16 November 2023 the wife moved to her parental home in Kolkata.
• The husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 2643 of 2024 before the Alipore Family Court on 4 September 2024 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
• On 10 October 2024 the wife filed UK Case No. 1727-9691-3028-3233 seeking divorce on the same ground and UK Case No. 1728-5776-1486-0043 seeking interim financial relief (maintenance).
• The UK Family Court, by order dated 6 December 2024, allocated the case to District Judge Ashworth, treating it as a complex case.
• The husband participated in the UK proceedings without submitting to its jurisdiction, while the wife relied on her student visa (valid until 29 September 2026) to assert continued residence in the UK.
• The wife filed a written statement contesting the husband’s Indian divorce suit on 17 March 2025.
• On 16 May 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 required him to furnish ownership details of Flats Nos. 14 and 58, Academy Gardens; the same day it passed an order on the husband’s jurisdictional objection, directing the wife to disclose details of ownership and control of the residential property at Academy Gardens.
• The wife’s application under Section 151 of the CPC to stay the Indian proceedings was dismissed by the Alipore Family Court on 25 September 2025.
• The husband instituted Title Suit No. 1656 of 2025 before the Alipore Trial Court on 31 October 2025, seeking a declaration that the wife’s UK proceedings were vexatious and without jurisdiction, a permanent injunction restraining her from prosecuting those proceedings, and claiming Rs. 2,40,00,000 with interest at 18% per annum towards amounts paid under UK orders, plus Rs. 85,00,000 for legal expenses incurred in defending the UK proceedings.
• On 1 November 2025 the Alipore Trial Court granted an ex-parte ad interim anti-suit injunction restraining the wife from taking any further steps in the UK matrimonial and financial proceedings.
• The wife challenged that injunction before the High Court at Calcutta, which, by judgment dated 15 December 2025, allowed her appeal and set aside the anti-suit injunction.
• During the pendency of the special leave petition, the English District Judge at Birmingham passed a conditional divorce decree on 17 June 2026; the Supreme Court, on 30 July 2026, granted a stay restraining the wife from proceeding under that decree.
• The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on 22 September 2026.

Procedural History

• 15.12.2018: Marriage solemnised in Kolkata.
• 2018-2020: Cohabitation in London at Flat 14, Academy Gardens.
• 02.2021: Wife leaves UK for India.
• 03.2022: Husband arranges spousal visa for wife.
• 10.2023: Parties return to India and reside together at husband’s family residence, Kolkata.
• 11.11.2023: Commencement of separate residence under same roof.
• 16.11.2023: Wife shifts to parental home, Kolkata.
• 04.09.2024: Husband files Matrimonial Suit No. 2643/2024 before Alipore Family Court (Section 13 HMA).
• 10.10.2024: Wife files UK divorce case (No. 1727-9691-3028-3233) and UK maintenance case (No. 1728-5776-1486-0043).
• 06.12.2024: UK Family Court allocates case to District Judge Ashworth.
• 17.03.2025: Wife files written statement contesting husband’s Indian divorce suit.
• 16.05.2025: UK Family Court orders interim maintenance, appoints expert, directs disclosure of flat ownership; decides jurisdictional objection.
• 25.09.2025: Alipore Family Court rejects wife’s Section 151 CPC stay application.
• 31.10.2025: Husband files Title Suit No. 1656/2025 before Alipore Trial Court.
• 01.11.2025: Alipore Trial Court grants ex-parte ad interim anti-suit injunction.
• 10.11.2025: Wife approaches High Court of Justice, Family Division, England and Wales seeking relief against Indian anti-suit injunction.
• 15.12.2025: High Court at Calcutta allows wife’s appeal, sets aside anti-suit injunction.
• 17.06.2026: English District Judge (Birmingham) passes conditional divorce decree.
• 30.07.2026: Supreme Court grants stay on interlocutory application restraining wife from proceeding under conditional decree.
• 22.09.2026: Supreme Court delivers judgment dismissing the appeal.

Relief Sought

The appellant-husband sought: (a) a declaration that the wife’s UK proceedings were vexatious and without jurisdiction; (b) a permanent injunction restraining the wife from prosecuting the UK matrimonial and financial proceedings; (c) payment of Rs. 2,40,00,000 with interest at 18% per annum towards amounts paid under UK Family Court orders; and (d) Rs. 85,00,000 towards legal expenses incurred in defending the UK proceedings.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the Alipore Trial Court erred in granting an anti-suit injunction to restrain the respondent-wife’s divorce proceedings in the UK Family Court when the UK forum was the convenient forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the proceedings were still pending, and the alleged ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage was not recognised under Indian law. The Court also had to consider whether the apprehension of non-recognition of a foreign decree under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could justify such an injunction, and whether the principle of comity of courts barred the Indian court from interfering with pending foreign litigation.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant/Petitioner

The appellant-husband contended that the Alipore Trial Court was justified in restraining the wife from prosecuting parallel proceedings in the UK which were oppressive and vexatious. He argued that the court had exercised its jurisdiction within the settled parameters governing the grant of an anti-suit injunction, with the object of preventing multiplicity of proceedings and avoiding the possibility of conflicting decisions. He submitted that the High Court had overlooked the fact that the parties were Indian citizens married in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Act and that the foreign proceedings instituted by the wife were founded on a ground not recognised under that Act, thus rendering any foreign decree vulnerable under Section 13 CPC. He relied on the judgments in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and Kishorekumar Mohan Kale v. Kashmira Kale to contend that the ground of relief granted by a foreign court must be consistent with the matrimonial law governing the parties. Finally, he highlighted that his suit had been filed earlier in point in time and that the wife had instituted the divorce and maintenance proceedings in the UK merely to exert pressure and to subject him to parallel and inconsistent adjudicatory processes.

For the Respondent/State

The respondent-wife countered that the appellant-husband’s reliance on the possible non-recognition of a future foreign decree under Section 13 CPC was premature, because recognition of a foreign decree depends on the jurisdiction exercised by the foreign court and observance of the principles of natural justice, and cannot be determined merely by the nomenclature of the ground on which the decree is granted. She submitted that the power to grant an anti-suit injunction must be exercised with circumspection, where the refusal of injunction may defeat the ends of justice. She further contended that the judgment in Y. Narasimha Rao (supra) was concerned with the recognition and conclusiveness of foreign matrimonial decrees after they are passed and did not mandate restraining pending foreign proceedings on the apprehension of future non-recognition under Section 13 CPC. She emphasized that the matrimonial home of the parties had been established in the UK, making the English Court the appropriate forum to entertain the matrimonial proceedings. Lastly, she pointed out that the appellant-husband had been residing in the UK since the age of 14-15 years, returning to India only to avoid the divorce and financial remedy proceedings pending in the UK.

The Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court began by noting that an anti-suit injunction is an equitable remedy governed by the doctrine of equity and the well-settled principles laid down in Modi Entertainment Network and Another vs. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd. (2003) 4 SCC 341. Those principles require that the defendant be amenable to the personal jurisdiction of the court, that refusal of the injunction would defeat the ends of justice, and that comity of courts must be respected. The Court observed that the High Court had correctly applied the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which is invoked when multiple fora are available to a litigant seeking the same remedy and the forum approached must examine whether any other forum is more convenient or better suited to consider the claim. The Court quoted from Arif Azim Company Limited vs. Micromax Informatics FZE (2025) 9 SCC 750: "The term ‘forum non conveniens’ is a Latin term which means ‘an inconvenient forum’ and provides that a court which otherwise might have jurisdiction may decline jurisdiction over a case if there is a more appropriate forum available to the parties, and is typically invoked in respect of cross-border subject-matters that are amenable to multiple concurrent jurisdictions." (Para 71)

The Court further relied on Baksish Ahmad vs. Union of India and Another (2026) SCC OnLine SC 1098, which explained that the doctrine applies only where multiple fora are available for the same remedy and the forum seized of the claim may refuse to entertain the claim and leave the litigant free to approach the other forum (Para 29). Applying this doctrine to the facts, the Court found that the husband and wife had established a settled residence in the UK, the husband had resided there since his mid-teens, and the wife was on a student visa valid until September 2026, making her a habitual resident of the UK. Consequently, the UK Family Court was the convenient forum, and the Indian court could not oust its jurisdiction.

On the question of Section 13 CPC, the Court held that the provision merely permits an Indian court to treat a foreign judgment as not conclusive; it does not confer authority to stall proceedings in a foreign tribunal. This principle was affirmed in Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited vs. Apple Energy Private Limited and Another (2021) SCC OnLine Del 2395, where the Delhi High Court observed that Indian courts lack appellate or supervisory powers across political boundaries. The Court also noted that the UK Family Court had already stayed the divorce and maintenance proceedings pending adjudication of the forum/jurisdiction issue, rendering any anti-suit injunction premature.

The Court emphasized that granting an anti-suit injunction at an inchoate stage of foreign proceedings interferes with the exercise of jurisdiction by the foreign court and is contrary to the principle of comity of courts. It cited Dinesh Singh Thakur vs. Sonal Thakur (2018) 17 SCC 12, which cautioned that such injunctions must be granted sparingly and not as a matter of routine, because they impinge on the jurisdiction of another sovereign court. The Court concluded that the Alipore Trial Court had erred by passing the injunction without first determining that the Indian forum was the convenient one and without waiting for the foreign proceedings to reach a final decision.

The Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s order that set aside the anti-suit injunction dated 1 November 2025. No costs or damages were awarded. The appeal thus stands dismissed, and any interlocutory applications linked thereto shall not survive.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Forum Non Conveniens Governs Anti-Suit Injunctions

The doctrine of forum non conveniens requires the court where proceedings are initiated to assess whether it is the convenient forum. If another forum is more suitable, the court must decline jurisdiction. Practitioners should therefore:

• Prepare evidence showing the parties’ settled residence, business ties, and centre of interests in the foreign jurisdiction.
• Demonstrate that the foreign court is capable of providing a fair and adequate remedy.
• Avoid seeking an anti-suit injunction merely because the foreign ground of relief is not recognised under Indian law.

Pending Foreign Proceedings Bar Anti-Suit Injunctions

When foreign litigation is still pending and no final decree has been passed, an anti-suit injunction is premature. The Court stressed that the mere apprehension of future non-recognition under Section 13 CPC cannot justify restraint. Litigants should:

• Wait for the foreign court to pronounce a final decree before challenging its enforceability under Section 13 CPC.
• File objections or applications within the foreign proceeding itself rather than seeking an anti-suit injunction in India.
• Remember that the power to grant such an injunction is exceptional and must be exercised with extreme caution.

Comity of Courts and Section 13 CPC Limit Unilateral Injunctions

Section 13 CPC does not empower Indian courts to interfere with foreign judicial processes; it only allows treating a foreign judgment as not conclusive. The principle of comity of courts mandates mutual respect for each other’s jurisdiction. Consequently:

• Counsel must frame challenges to foreign decrees as objections to enforcement or execution under Section 13 CPC, not as pleas for anti-suit injunctions.
• When advising clients with transnational matrimonial disputes, prioritise negotiation or participation in the foreign forum.
• Be aware that unilateral anti-suit injunctions risk generating multiplicity of proceedings and may be set aside on grounds of forum non conveniens or lack of jurisdiction.