IMPORTANT POINT
Courts in India competent to issue anti-suit injunction but the injunction should be granted sparingly especially in case of a foreign court.

Headnote:(a) Doctrine of equity – Anti-suit injunction – Restraining one party from prosecuting a case in another court outside its jurisdiction – Courts in India competent to issue anti-suit injunction – But should be granted sparingly especially in case of a foreign court – Section 41, Specific Relief Act, 1963. (Para 9, 10, 14)
       Civil Appeal No. 1123 of 2006 – Relied upon
       2003 (67) DRJ 58 – Cited with approval
       (1987) 1 SCC 496; (2003) 4 SCC 341 – Referred
       (b) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 41 – Respondent wife amenable to personal jurisdiction of court at Gurgaon – The court competent to issue anti-suit injunction – Both husband and wife citizens of USA as well as OCI – Wife filing divorce petition in USA – Husband praying for anti-suit injunction before court at Gurgaon on ground of suffering great injustice if injunction not granted – Husband also residing in USA – Application for anti-suit injunction filed through power of attorney holder – Held husband will not suffer any injustice if anti-suit injunction is not passed in respect of proceeding before USA court. (Para 18)
       (c) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 – Respondent wife filing divorce petition in USA court on ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Though not a valid ground under the Act, filing a petition does not mean that the petitioner will succeed – This contention already raised by appellant before USA court – Grant of anti-suit injunction not warranted. (Para 19)
       Facts of the case:
       The marriage between Dinesh Singh Thakur-the appellant-husband and Sonal Thakur -respondent-wife was solemnized on 20.02.1995 and two children were born out of the said wedlock. The appellant-husband was working in United States of America (USA) at the time of marriage and he took the respondent-wife to USA on Dependent Visa. Both the parties got the citizenship of USA in May, 2003. They obtained “PIO” status (Person of India Origin) in June 2003 and “OCI” status (Overseas Citizens of India) in July 2006.
       The appellant-husband filed a petition against the respondent-wife at the Family Court, Gurgaon which is pending adjudication before the Court. Subsequently, the respondent-wife filed a petition in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, USA for divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and other reliefs. Thereafter, the appellant-husband filed Civil Suit for permanent injunction and declaration inter alia to restrain the respondent-wife from pursuing the petition for divorce before the Court in USA.
       The District Judge, granted ex parte ad interim injunction to the appellant-husband. The respondent-wife filed an application for vacation and modification of the order which was allowed. The appellant-husband preferred CR before the High Court which was dismissed.
       Finding of the Court:
       There is no merit in the appeal.
       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

R.K.Agrawal, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) The present appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CR No. 7190 of 2016 whereby learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the revision filed by the appellant-husband against the order dated 18.10.2016 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon in Civil Suit No. 15 of 2016 whereby ad-interim injunction granted against the respondent-wife, vide order dated 26.09.2016 has been vacated.

Brief facts:-

3) Having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case, we do not intend to discuss all the facts in detail at this stage. Hence, the facts are stated in a summarized way only to appreciate the issue involved in this instant appeal.

(a) The marriage between Dinesh Singh Thakur-the appellant-husband and Sonal Thakur -respondent-wife was solemnized on 20.02.1995 as per Hindu rites and two children were born out of the said wedlock. The appellant-husband was working in United States of America (USA) at the time of marriage and he took the respondent-wife to USA on Dependent Visa. Both the parties got the citizenship of USA in May, 2003. They obtained “PIO” status (Person of India Origin) in June 2003 and “OCI” status (Overseas Citizens of India) in July 2006.

(b) The appellant-husband filed a petition being H.M.A. No. 601 of 2016 under Sections 13 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ‘the Act’) against the respondent-wife at the Family Court, Gurgaon which is pending adjudication before the Court. Subsequently, the respondent-wife filed a petition being Case No. 2016-008918-FD in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, USA for divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and other reliefs. Thereafter, the appellant-husband filed Civil Suit No. 15 of 2016 before the District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, under Section 7 of the Act for permanent injunction and declaration inter alia to restrain the respondent-wife from pursuing the petition for divorce before the Court in USA.

(c) Learned District Judge, vide order dated 26.09.2016, granted ex parte ad interim injunction to the appellant-husband. Being aggrieved, the respondent-wife filed an application for vacation and modification of the order dated 26.09.2016. Learned District Judge, vide order dated 18.10.2016, vacated the injunction granted vide order dated 26.09.2016.

(d) Aggrieved by the order vacating injunction, the appellant-husband preferred CR No. 7190 of 2016 before the High Court. Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated 03.11.2016 dismissed the petition filed by the appellant-husband.

(e) Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 03.11.2016, the appellant-husband has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

4) Heard Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the appellant-husband and Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the respondent-wife and perused the record.

Point(s) for consideration:-

5) The only point for consideration before this Court is whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant-husband is entitled to the decree of anti-suit injunction against the respondent-wife?

Rival submissions:-

6) Learned senior counsel for the appellant-husband contended that as the appellant herein had already filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage of the parties in which the respondent-wife was served on 04.08.2016 and she had caused appearance on 16.09.2016, the proceedings initiated by the respondent-wife seeking a decree of divorce in a Foreign Court on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage which is not a ground for divorce under the Act are liable to be stayed. Further, the respondent-wife, along with her minor children is residing in India since 2003 and filing of petition for divorce in the Court at USA, after receipt of notice in the divorce petition fil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 351

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA R.K. AGRAWAL, R. BANUMATHI, JJ. Dinesh Singh Thakur – Appellant(s)Versus Sonal Thakur – Respondent(s) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3878 of 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10078 of 2018) @ CC No.22197 of 2016Decided On : 17-04-2018

IMPORTANT POINTCourts in India competent to issue anti-suit injunction but the injunction should be granted sparingly especially in case of a foreign court.

Cases Referred (3)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. AGRAWAL, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
Dinesh Singh Thakur – Appellant(s)
Versus
Sonal Thakur – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3878 of 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10078 of 2018) @ CC No.22197 of 2016
Decided On : 17-04-2018

IMPORTANT POINT
Courts in India competent to issue anti-suit injunction but the injunction should be granted sparingly especially in case of a foreign court.