ORDER :

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in M.P. No. 2193 of 2020, whereby the order passed by the Trial Court, namely, Court of First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, dated 02.07.2020 in Case RCS No. 1089 of 2019 rejecting application filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code for granting interim anti-suit injunction against the respondent came to be affirmed.

The reliefs claimed in the application filed before the Trial Court read thus:

“(a) Pass an order allowing the present application thereby granting temporary anti-suit ex parte injunction in favour of the Plaintiff/Applicant and against the Defendant by restraining her from proceeding with the petition bearing case no. FC2019-090049 before Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County as well as further restraining her from initiating any other or further action or proceeding of filing of any suit or claims against Plaintiff in any Court/Tribunal/Forum in any country outside India with regard to matrimonial disputes of the Plaintiff and Defendant;

(b) Pass any other or further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case and in the interest of justice.”

It was urged before the Trial Court that the respondent had resorted to proceedings for divorce before the Superior Court of Arizona, where according to the appellant, the parties had never resided. Both the parties are Hindu and were married under the Hindu law.

The child was also born in California. The parties had never resided in the State of Arizona.

Moreover, in the proceedings before the Superior Court of Arizona, objection regarding the jurisdiction of that court had been taken by the appellant and while dealing with the preliminary objection, that court made it amply clear, that it intends to apply the laws of State of Arizona and would not take into account the laws applicable to Hindu marriage, namely, Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage.

In view of this observation, the appellant apprehends that some drastic order is likely to be passed by the Superior Court of Arizona at the instance of respondent wife. Notably, the respondent is bent upon precipitating the matter before the Court at Arizona, despite the appellant having resorted to proceedings for divorce as well as custody of the minor child in India before the Court at Bhopal in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Those proceedings are still pending, where the respondent has had entered appearance after the subject application was moved by the appellant.

Be that as it may, during the pendency of the stated suit for declaration and for direction to handover custody of the minor child, an application had been moved by the appellant before the Trial Court which came to be rejected on the ground, that the Superior Court of Arizona was outside India and not subordinate to that court. This view noted by the Trial Court is completely erroneous and ill-advised. For, the relief claimed by the appellant was for grant of interim anti-suit injunction against the respondent and not against the Superior Court of Arizona, as such.

When the matter traveled to the High Court at the instance of the appellant, even the High Court proceeded on an incorrect basis, that the courts in India could adjudicate the controversy between the parties, only after the Superior Court of Arizona would pass an order in the pending proceedings. That was not the purpose for which the ex parte ad interim relief was sought by the appellant. In any case, no judgment of this Court has been brought to our notice, which says that if the other party had already resorted to proceedings before another court including outside India, an anti-suit injunction cannot be issued even if the fact situation so warrants.

In our opinion, both the Tri