IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court may decline to grant an anti-suit injunction if the proceedings initiated by the respondent in a foreign jurisdiction are not vexatious or oppressive, and the appellant would not suffer grave injustice if the injunction is not granted.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J. - The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated November 20, 2023 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, North District, Rohini, Delhi, whereby the application preferred on behalf of the appellant under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. was dismissed and ad-interim injunction granted vide order dated October 26, 2023 was vacated.

2. In brief, as per the case of the appellant, marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on October 17, 2018 in Delhi. The parties moved to USA after few days of marriage on December 16, 2018. A child was born out of the wedlock on September 27, 2021 and is currently living in USA in joint custody of the parties.

3. It is further the case of the appellant that on October 17, 2022, the parties reached Delhi from USA, but the respondent did not permit the family of the appellant to meet the new born child. Thereafter, they returned to USA in January 2023. Further, as on April 02, 2023, the parties were living in the same house but without co-habitation.

4. Thereafter, a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was preferred on behalf of appellant, seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty, before the Family Court, Rohini on May 19, 2023, which is listed for hearing on February 13, 2024.

5. A petition was also preferred on behalf of the respondent wife in the State of Michigan before Judicial Circuit Probate Court, County of Oakland, Family Division, USA vide case No. 2023-522892-Dm titled as 'Akansha Ahuja Sapra v. Sumit Sapra' and notice/summons of the said case were received by the appellant on September 26, 2023.

6. In the aforesaid background, appellant preferred an anti-suit injunction read with Section 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 being CS No.53/23 on October 16, 2023 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, North District, Rohini, Delhi for restraining the wife from proceeding with divorce petition filed by her before the Court in State of Michigan, USA. An ex parte ad-interim injunction was granted by learned Judge, Family Court vide order dated October 26, 2023 but the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. was finally dismissed vide order dated November 20, 2023 and the interim stay was vacated.

7. The case of the appellant is that respondent has preferred the divorce proceedings before the State of Michigan, Judicial Circuit Probate Court, County of Oakland, Family Division, USA with a malafide and ulterior motive, despite the fact that the marriage between the parties was solemnized at Delhi and both the parties lastly resided as husband and wife in India. Further, the respondent has a permanent address in Delhi.

It is further contended by learned counsel for appellant that the parties are permanent citizens of India but have been residing in USA only because of their respective jobs. The residence of both the parties is stated to be only temporary since they did not apply for 'Green Card'. It is emphasized that appellant had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court in USA at the time of filing of proceedings before the Family Court. It is further urged that respondent filed the divorce case in USA on the grounds which are not recognized under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and as such, the decree of divorce, if passed by the Courts in USA in favour of the respondent, shall not be recognised under Section 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Written submissions have also been filed on record.

Reliance is further placed upon Madhavendra L. Bhatnagar v. Bhavna Lall, (2021) 2 SCC 775, Y. Narsimha Rao and Ors. v. Y. Venkata, (1991) 3 SCC 451, Soundur Gopal v. Soundur Rajini, (2013) 7 SCC 426, Modi Entertainment v. WSG Cricket Pte. Ltd., (2003) 4 SCC 341, Essel Sports Pvt. Ltd. v. BCCI, (2011) 178 DLT 465 (DB) and Damini Manchanda v. Avinash Bhambhani, 2022 SCC OnLine DL 1957.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent subm