The jurisdiction for filing a suit for injunction is determined by the defendant's residence as per the Code of Civil Procedure, and not solely by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

1. The challenge in the present petition is to an order passed by the learned trial Court on 17-1-2007 issuing notice of an ad interim injunction application filed by the petitioner to the defendant on 27-1-2007.

2. The petitioner has filed a suit for mandatory injunction/permanent injunction/prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from continuing with the complaint for divorce pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division-Family Part Passaic County (hereinafter referred to as the Foreign Court ) and from filing any other suit case against the plaintiff in the Courts at New Jersey (USA) or any other Court abroad, in contravention of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 27-1-2000 at Dehradun in the State of Uttaranchal. The parties resided as husband and wife at Panchkula. A daughter was born out of the wedlock on 13-9-2002. The defendant initially went abroad without permission and without seeking consent of the plaintiff on 15-6-2005, leaving her three year old child with her relatives in Delhi. On return from England, the defendant again joined the Company of the plaintiff but refused to apologise for her behaviour and remained non committal about her future plan of leaving the country without the consent of the plaintiff.

4. It is alleged that the defendant left the matrimonial home on 9-9-2005 in his absence and by taking away the child, all her belongings, jewelleries and other valuables. Now, the respondent has filed a complaint for divorce on 12-12-2006 before the Foreign Court, on the basis of vague allegations and in respect of the period when the defendant stayed at matrimonial home at Panchkula. It is alleged that none of the allegations fall within the jurisdiction of the Foreign Court, in as much as the plaintiff never resided or even visited the New Jersey, at any point of time. The plaintiff has been directed to answer the complaint within 35 days after the service of the summons. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has submitted reply taking the objections with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Foreign Court, yet the present suit is necessitated on account of open assertions by the father of the defendant that the Foreign Court will pass an ex parte order with regard to the claim made by the defendant. It is alleged that in terms of Section 19 of the Act, the Court at Panchkula had the jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that the application for ad interim injunction should have been decided by the learned trial Court ex parte as the Foreign Court is likely to decide the claim of the defendant on or before 2-2-2007. But, the trial Court has called upon the defendant in such ad interim injunction application. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that such process has caused manifest injustice to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further called upon this Court to pass an order on merits after considering the judgments referred to by the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that anti suit injunction is a principle well recognized by the Hon ble Supreme Court and, therefore, in the facts of the case, the defendant should be restrained from prosecuting her complaint which is lodged before the Foreign Court. It is alleged that the Foreign Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the divorce petition with respect to a marriage solemnized under the Act and when the petitioner has never visited the New Jersey State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Modi Entertainment Network V/s. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd. (2003) 4 SCC 341 : (AIR 2003 SC 1177) and Oil and Natural Gas Commission V/s. Western Company of North America (1987) 1 SCC 496 : (AIR 1987 SC 674). Reference was also made to ad interim ord