Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
R.D. Dhanuka, J.
Arunima Naveen Takiar —Applicant
versus
Naveen Takiar —Respondent
Notice of Motion No.28 of 2015 in Suit No.880 of 2014
Decided on 29.1.2019
Counsel for the Parties:
Ms. Anubha Rastogi for the Applicant in the Notice of Motion and for the Plaintiff
For the Respondent: Mr.Abhishek Khare i/b Khare Legal Chambers
IMPORTANT POINT
A party cannot take any exception to proceedings in India under provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 merely on account of his citizenship or domicile.
Headnote:(A) Injunction—Divorce Proceeding—Applicant (original plaintiff) seeks ex-parte ad-interim order for staying divorce proceedings—When marriage was solemnized under Hindu Law, proceedings for divorce has also to be made under provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—A party cannot take any exception to proceedings in India under provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 merely on account of his citizenship or domicile—Marriage was solemnized in Mumbai and merely because defendant is having domiciled of U.K. whether by birth or by choice or otherwise would be no significance and would not divest jurisdiction of Court provided under Section 19 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the purpose of filing proceedings under provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Though defendant filed Divorce petition before Family Court at UK, no maintenance at all has been paid to plaintiff by defendant—Plaintiff has made out a case for exercising powers of Court to grant anti-suit injunction against defendant from proceeding divorce petition filed by defendant against plaintiff being a Family Court in UK—Notice of motion made absolute. (Paras 34, 38, 43, 47, 52 and 53)
(B) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Sections 1(2) and 19—Matrimonial proceeding—Under provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, no decree of divorce can be granted on the ground that marriage has been broken down irretrievably—In present case, parties having been married in Mumbai under provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, that law governs marriage of party. (Para 48)
Result: Notice of motion made absolute.
R.D. Dhanuka, J.—By this notice of motion the applicant (original plaintiff) seeks ex-parte ad-interim order for staying the divorce proceedings in MA14D00552 by the defendant and pending before the Family Court, Manchester, United Kingdom (UK) and also seeks an injunction against the defendant from proceeding with the said proceedings. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this notice of motion:
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the parties to the suit were engaged in Mumbai on 11th December, 2012 in presence of the family members. On 12th December, 2012, the parties were married as per Hindu rites and ceremonies in Shri Ram Mandir, Bandra (East), Bombay. The marriage was registered at Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation. On 17th December, 2012, the defendant along with his daughters from his first marriage left for UK leaving the plaintiff behind till her visa papers were processed. During the period between December, 2012 and July, 2013, the parties were in regular contact through telephone and email. The plaintiff was regularly calling the defendant. On 19th March, 2013, the father of the plaintiff passed away at Mumbai.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 14th July, 2013, the plaintiff arrived in UK and was received by the defendant at the airport. From 14th July, 2013 itself, the defendant started ill- treating the plaintiff and used to pick up fights with her.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 31st August, 2013, the defendant arrived at the matrimonial home of the parties along with two policemen asking her to leave the premises. The agreement of matrimonial home was up for renewal on 1st September, 2013. The defendant insisted on evicting the plaintiff on 31st August, 2013 and the plaintiff was forced to pack some of her belongings and was made to leave the matrimonial home.
5. It is the case of the plaintiff that during the period 31st August, 2013 and 2nd November, 2013, the plaintiff was placed in a hotel by the defendant. The defendant however, paid only for 15 days. The plaintiff had to bear the cost of remaining number of days.
6. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 2nd November, 2013, the plaintiff was forced to leave back to India as she had no resources remaining to spare. On 22nd November, 2013, the plaintiff received a confirmation about the job that she had applied for in UK and decided to travel back to UK. The plaintiff was however, refused entry in the country, as the defendant had notified the authorities that he had withdrawn the support of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was accordingly sent back to India by the next available flight.
7. It is the case of the plaintiff that during the period November, 2013 till June, 2014, the plaintiff and her family members constantly tried to reconcile the issues between the parties. The defendant however, blocked the email and telephone numbers of the plaintiff and cut off all the communication. Though the plaintiff had sent the gifts to the defendant on their anniversary, birthday, birthdays of the children, Christmas and New Year, the defendant did not give any response.
8. On 18th April, 2014,the plaintiff sent a reconciliation notice to the defendant asking him to take steps to reconcile the issue. There was however, no response to the said notice.
9. On 9th June, 2014, the plaintiff was informed by the electronic email by the lawyer of the defendant that the defendant had initiated the divorce proceedings in the concerned Court in UK against the plaintiff. On 14th June, 2014, the plaintiff sent a response to the said notice dated 9th June, 2014 informing the defendant that the marriage of parties was governed by the Indian law and the plaintiff was refusing to accept the jurisdiction of UK Court amongst other issues. On 16th June, 2014, the plaintiff received the response from the advocate of the defendant. On 20th June, 2014, the plaintiff sent a copy of notice dated 14th June, 2014 which was sent to the defe
