The court's decision was influenced by the principles of jurisdiction, comity, and the balance of convenience, as well as the potential for conflicting decisions in multiple jurisdictions.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)

I.A. 566/2022 (O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of CPC)

1. The present application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking interim order restraining the defendant from proceeding with the divorce petition filed by him before the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Toronto, Canada (Canadian Court).

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has filed a divorce petition against the defendant before the Family Court, Saket, New Delhi on 16th December, 2020, which has been pending for over a year and the defendant has avoided service in the said matter. In order to harass the plaintiff, the defendant filed a divorce case in Canada on 13th December, 2021.

3. The aforesaid application came up before the Predecessor Bench on 12th January, 2022, when summons in the suit and notice in the present application were issued to the defendant. However, no ex parte interim injunction was granted at that stage.

4. The relevant observations by the Court on 12th January, 2022 are set out below:

"8. Ms. Preeti Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff, has submitted that urgent interim directions are required to be issued in this case. It is submitted that the parties stand in the relationship of husband and wife. Due to matrimonial disputes, the plaintiff had instituted proceedings for divorce by filing a case on 16th December, 2020 against the defendant, which is pending before the Family Court, Saket, New Delhi. Though summons were issued in that suit on 25th February, 2021, apparently, the defendant had not yet appeared before the learned Family Court either himself or through a pleader. It is further submitted that the defendant was, at that time, residing in India and also responded to a legal notice issued by the plaintiff, on 10th February, 2021 through a lawyer whose office is also in New Delhi. In that reply, the address of the defendant was affirmed to be E-28, Neb Valley, Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110068. It is submitted that, however, in September, 2021, the defendant shifted with his children to Toronto, Canada. Thereafter, on 13th December, 2021, he is stated to have filed a divorce case against the plaintiff in a court there.

9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that permitting the continuation of the suit filed by the defendant before the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Toronto, Canada, would only lead to multiplicity of the proceedings as well as ambiguity. The learned counsel submitted that prejudice was being caused to the plaintiff inasmuch as she had opted for the jurisdiction of the Indian court first and it was only a year later that defendant had instituted the divorce proceedings in Canada. The learned counsel stressed that the larger issue was ambiguity inasmuch as the two courts could render conflicting decisions. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this court in Harmeeta Singh v. Rajat Taneja, 2003 SCC OnLine Del 60 to submit that this Court had the jurisdiction to stay the proceedings before the court in Canada.

10. Having heard learned counsel in detail and considered the material placed on the record, this Court is of the view that no prima facie case has been disclosed for this Court to exercise its discretion in her favour to restrain the defendant from continuing with the divorce proceedings pending before the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Toronto, Canada.

11. It is to be noticed that though it was submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the parties are Indians and were married as per Hindu rites, at the time the plaintiff chose to file the divorce petition, she was residing in Canada i.e., 1166, Mcbride Avenue, Mississaunga Onatro, L5C 1M8, Canada. Interestingly, in the 'Memo of Parties', while the plaintiff is described as 'D/o Om Prakash Manchanda, R/o. E-28, Neb Valley, Neb Sarai, Sainik Farm, New Delhi-110068', it is also stated as "presently residing at 1166, Mcbride Avenue, Mississaunga Onatro, L5C 1M8, Canada". Despite the averments in t