The domicile and continuous residence of the parties in a foreign jurisdiction can influence the court's decision on granting an anti-suit injunction in a matrimonial dispute.

JUDGMENT :

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

C.M.No.4004/2021

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 19/2021 & C.M.No.4003/2021

1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge (South), Family Court, Saket, New Delhi in CS No.20/2010, wherein the appellant/plaintiff sought anti-suit injunction against the defendant/respondent herein to seek restraint against him for proceeding with divorce petition filed by him as case no. FC/D- 1104/2020 titled as Pankaj Bahl vs Rakhee Bahl to seek dissolution of marriage before the Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore.

2. By the impugned order, the Family Court has dismissed the application preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC to seek interim restraint against the defendant/respondent proceeding with the said suit.

3. The interim application was initially taken up by the learned Principal Judge(South), Family Court, Saket on 12.10.2020. On the said date, while issuing summons in the suit and notice in the interim application to the defendant/respondent, the learned Judge granted an injunction till the next date of hearing, restraining the defendant/respondent from, in any manner, prosecuting, pursuing or going ahead with his divorce action or any other proceedings as emanating from the matrimony between the parties in the aforesaid case pending in the Singapore Court.

4. The impugned order has been passed after hearing the counsels and after the defendant/respondent was served and had filed his reply.

5. The plea taken by the appellant/plaintiff before the Family Court was to the effect that the proceedings filed by the respondent to seek divorce were premised on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which is not a ground available under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Both the parties being Hindus and having got married at Delhi, it was contended that they were governed by the said Act and, therefore, even if the respondent were to obtain a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in Singapore, the same would not be recognized in India since the same is not a ground available for obtaining divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.

6. The defendant/respondent contested the suit and sought vacation of the interim injunction granted on 12.10.2020 by filing an application under order 39 Rule 3 & 4 CPC. It was pointed out by the defendant/respondent that the parties had been residing continuously in Singapore since the year 2012; the present suit had been filed by the plaintiff/appellant after she had already participated in the proceedings before the Singapore Court for about 5 months; she had also moved an application in those proceedings to seek maintenance after engaging services of a law firm styled as Gloria James Civetta & Co.; she was continuously residing in Singapore and, in fact, even when she moved the aforesaid suit with interim application to seek injunction, she was a resident of Singapore.

7. We find that in the impugned order, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has taken note of the law laid down by several decisions of the Supreme Court including, in Y.Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi (1991) 3 SCC 451, Modi Entertainment Network v. WSG Cricket PTE Ltd., 2003(4) SCC 341, Dinesh Singh Thakur v. Sonal Thakur., AIR 2018 SC 2094 on the aspect of grant of anti-suit injunction.

8. The learned Principal Judge held that since the parties were domiciled in Singapore, where they have been continuously residing since 2012, the appellant/plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction to restrain the respondent from proceeding with the divorce petition in Singapore.

9. Before us, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant would be severely prejudiced in case the divorce proceedings are allowed to continue in Singapore Courts, since it is likely that divorce wo