Indian courts have jurisdiction over divorce proceedings under the Special Marriage Act, and can grant anti-suit injunctions to prevent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions when the grounds for divorce are not recognized in India.

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been presented to issue a direction to the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Chennai, to expeditiously dispose of O.P.No.4126 of 2024 in view of Section 40B(2) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 .

2. Pending this revision, an application has been presented in CMP.No.25224 of 2024 seeking for the relief of ad interim injunction restraining the first respondent from initiating any legal proceedings against the civil revision petitioner before the courts in United States of America or Singapore in relation to the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the first respondent on 18.09.2013, under the Special Marriage Act, and to declare any proceedings initiated by the first respondent to be null and void, pending disposal of O.P.No.4126 of 2024.

3. The civil revision petition is at the instance of the husband.

4. The facts necessary for this case are, the petitioner and the first respondent solemnized their wedding under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act at Chennai. Thereafter, they relocated to the United States of America. In and about 2016, a child was born from the wedlock. Between 2021 and 2023, the couple resided in Washington. In 2023, the petitioner and the first respondent re-located to Singapore. On 31.08.2024, the first respondent lodged a complaint against the civil revision petitioner, alleging that, he had assaulted her. On account of this complaint, the civil revision petitioner moved away from the matrimonial home, which he had taken on rent. Shortly thereafter, he came down to India and filed O.P.No.4126 of 2024 before the Family Court, Chennai. He seeks for divorce on two grounds, namely, cruelty and adultery under Sections 27(1)(a) and 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act of 1954. He impleaded the alleged adulterer as the second respondent to the petition.

5. Fearing that the first respondent might initiate divorce proceedings in USA or Singapore, he filed an application in IA.No.3 of 2024 seeking the relief of an anti-suit injunction. He sought to restrain the first respondent from initiating any legal proceedings seeking for divorce in Singapore or the United States and also to declare that any proceedings initiated to be null and void. He also sought for interim custody of the minor son born to the couple in I.A.No.4 of 2024.

6. Notice was ordered to the first respondent. In the meantime, on 06.09.2024, the first respondent initiated a proceeding for divorce before the Superior Court of Washington, County of King in the United States. She also filed an application seeking immediate restraining order in the said Court. The application came to be rejected on 07.10.2024. Immediately, another application was moved by her seeking reconsideration and clarification of the order passed on that date.

7. Earlier, the first respondent had initiated a proceeding for maintenance and for custody of the minor child before the courts in Singapore. In the said proceeding, the civil revision petitioner filed an application on 15.10.2024 seeking to restrain the first respondent from removing the minor from the jurisdiction of the Courts in Singapore. On the same date, the Court also passed a restraint order. A day before the order came to be passed, on 14.10.2024, the first respondent along with the child left Singapore to San Francisco. The order of restraint passed on 15.10.2024 was extended by the Family Court in Singapore.

8. In the meantime, the petitioner appeared before the Family Court at Chennai. The matter was adjourned to 25.11.2024. Therefore, an application was moved for advancing the hearing in anti-suit injunction application. It came to be dismissed by the court on 09.10.2024.

9. Feeling aggrieved that no orders have been passed by the learned Family Judge in the anti-suit injunction petition, the present civil revision petition has come up before this court.

10. When the revision came up for admission, even before I ordered notice, Mr.V.Manohar took notice