In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Supratim Bhattacharya FMAT No. 466 of 2025 +

CAN 1 of 2025 Vidushi Jain Bajoria – Versus –

Sri Mihir Prakash Bajoria For the appellants : Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee, Mr. Abir Lal Chakravarti, Ms. Rajkumari Priyanka Devi, Mr. Parikshit Lakhotia For the respondent : Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Samriddha Sen, Mr. Ayush Jain, Ms. A. P. Agarwalla Heard on : 08.12.2025 Reserved on : 08.12.2025 Judgment on : 15.12.2025 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The defendant-wife in a suit for divorce instituted by the respondent-husband has preferred the instant appeal against an order dated November 1, 2025, whereby the learned Trial Judge granted ad interim injunction restraining the defendant/appellant, her men, agents, servants and assigns from prosecuting, continuing or taking any step or further step in or in connection with the proceedings instituted by the appellant before the Central Family Court, United Kingdom, being Case No. 1727-9691-3208-3233 and Case No. 1728-8776-1486-0043 or any other proceedings of like nature between the same parties before any foreign court.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the parties have been residing abroad since long. The appellant-wife has been residing in the United Kingdom (UK) since the year 2015, initially on a student visa and thereafter for a limited period on a work visa and at present again on a student visa.

3. Both the parties are Indian citizens governed by Hindu Law. The marriage between the parties took place in Kolkata, India on December 15, 2018 according to Hindu customs and rituals.

4. Upon the relationship between the parties having turned acrimonious, the respondent-husband instituted the present suit for divorce in the Alipore Court, District: South 24 Parganas, in India on September 4, 2024.

5. On the other hand, the appellant-wife instituted a divorce application before the concerned District Court in UK on October 10, 2024. On the very next day, that is on October 11, 2024, the appellant-wife also filed an application for financial relief (maintenance) ancillary to the divorce petition. The divorce petition was numbered as Case No. 1727-9691-3208-3233 and the maintenance application was registered as Case No. 1728-8776-

1486-0043.

6. On December 06, 2024, the case was recorded to be a complex case and was allocated to District Judge (DJ) Ashworth as a Complexity Judge in the Central Family Court.

7. On May 16, 2025, the Family Court in UK passed an order directing the respondent-husband to pay maintenance under different heads at the rates specified therein.

8. On September 25, 2025, the appellant-wife filed in the husband‟s suit an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for stay of the matrimonial suit instituted by the respondent- husband in India, which was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge.

9. The respondent-husband, on October 29, 2025, filed an application for temporary injunction in his divorce suit, upon which the impugned ad interim anti-suit injunction order dated November 1, 2025 was passed.

10. The primary grounds for grant of injunction, as recorded in the impugned order, were as follows:

(i) The divorce suit filed by the respondent-husband in India was earlier on point of time than that of the appellant-wife;

(ii) The District Court in UK has no jurisdiction, since the appellant-wife is not a permanent resident of UK; and (iii) The maintenance order passed by the UK court is onerous and oppressive, as the amount granted exceeds the income of the respondent-husband as per his income tax returns and that compliance of the said order has affected the financial stability of the husband and may expose him to coercive measures abroad.

11. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-wife argues that the contention of the respondent-husband to