Mihir Prakash Bajoria vs Vidushi Jain Bajoria

Supreme Court Denies Anti-Suit Injunction, Upholds UK as Convenient Forum in Matrimonial Dispute

Case Snapshot

Case Name: Mihir Prakash Bajoria v. Vidushi Jain Bajoria
Citation: 2026 INSC 1034
Bench: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Date of Judgment: September 22, 2026
Area of Law: Matrimonial Law, Anti-Suit Injunction, Foreign Proceedings, Comity of Courts

The Judgment in One Line

Supreme Court dismisses husband’s appeal, holding that anti-suit injunction cannot restrain wife from pursuing divorce proceedings in UK, which is the convenient forum.

Why this Judgement Matters

This judgment clarifies the principles governing anti-suit injunctions in matrimonial disputes involving foreign proceedings. It holds that such injunctions are drastic, equitable remedies to be granted sparingly, not routinely. The ruling emphasises the doctrine of forum non conveniens, comity of courts, and the limited scope of Section 13 CPC. It protects the right of a spouse to pursue remedies in a foreign court where the parties had substantial connections, even if the ground for divorce is not recognised under Indian law. A significant precedent on cross-border matrimonial litigation.

Background

The parties, Indian citizens, married in Kolkata in 2018 and largely resided in London. The husband filed a divorce suit in Alipore in September 2024 under the Hindu Marriage Act. The wife filed divorce and financial proceedings in the UK Family Court in October 2024 on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. The husband participated without submitting to UK jurisdiction. An Indian court rejected the wife’s plea to stay the Indian proceedings. The husband then filed a title suit in Alipore seeking declaration that the UK proceedings were vexatious and an anti-suit injunction. The Alipore Trial Court granted ex parte anti-suit injunction on November 1, 2025. The High Court set it aside on December 15, 2025. The husband appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Court

Whether the Alipore Trial Court was justified in granting an anti-suit injunction restraining the wife from prosecuting UK proceedings.
Whether the UK Family Court was the convenient forum for the matrimonial dispute.
Whether the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, not recognised under Indian law, justified the anti-suit injunction.
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the anti-suit injunction.

What Did the Supreme Court Hold?

Anti-Suit Injunction Is a Drastic Remedy

It restrains a party from prosecuting proceedings in a foreign court; it does not stay the foreign court itself.
It is governed by equity and must be granted sparingly, not as a matter of routine.
The court must be extremely slow unless pure legal or jurisdictional considerations apply.

Principles Governing Anti-Suit Injunction

Defendant must be amenable to personal jurisdiction of the Indian court.
If injunction is declined, ends of justice must be defeated and injustice perpetuated.
Comity of courts must be respected.
Where multiple forums exist, the court examines which is the appropriate forum considering convenience of parties.
Injunction may be granted if foreign proceedings are oppressive, vexatious, or in a forum non conveniens.

Forum Non Conveniens

The doctrine allows a court to decline jurisdiction if a more appropriate forum exists.
The UK was the convenient forum: parties had resided in London for years, established matrimonial home, and had substantial connections.
The husband had resided in UK since age 14–15; wife was habitual resident.
The Indian court could not stall UK proceedings merely because the ground of irretrievable breakdown is not recognised in India.
Section 13 CPC only permits treating a foreign judgment as not conclusive; it does not authorise stalling foreign proceedings.

Premature Ground

The UK proceedings were at the jurisdiction stage; it was premature to assume a decree would be passed on irretrievable breakdown and would be unenforceable in India.
The foreign court cannot be presumed to exercise jurisdiction wrongly.

High Court Correct

The High Court rightly set aside the anti-suit injunction.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment and dismissed the appeal.

Key Legal Principles

Anti-suit injunction is an equitable, drastic remedy to be granted sparingly.
It restrains a party from prosecuting foreign proceedings; it does not directly stay the foreign court.
The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to decline jurisdiction if a more convenient forum exists.
Comity of courts requires respect for foreign judicial proceedings.
Mere non-recognition of a ground for divorce under Indian law does not justify an anti-suit injunction.
Section 13 CPC only makes a foreign judgment non-conclusive; it does not authorise stalling foreign proceedings.
The burden is on the party seeking anti-suit injunction to prove oppressive or vexatious proceedings.
A foreign court is presumed to exercise jurisdiction correctly unless proven otherwise.

Important Precedents

Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd. – Laid down principles for anti-suit injunction: personal jurisdiction, ends of justice, comity, forum non conveniens.
Dinesh Singh Thakur v. Sonal Thakur – Anti-suit injunction to be granted sparingly; mere filing on a ground not available under Indian law does not justify injunction.
Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi – Deals with recognition of foreign matrimonial decrees; does not mandate restraining pending foreign proceedings.
Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Micromax Informatics FZE – Explained forum non conveniens: adequate alternative forum must exist.
Bakshish Ahmad v. Union of India – Doctrine applies where multiple fora are available; court may refuse to entertain claim.
Spiliada Maritime Corp. v. Canuslex Ltd. – Fundamental principle: choose forum where case can be tried more suitably for interests of all parties and ends of justice.

Practical Impact

For Advocates: This judgment provides a strong precedent to oppose anti-suit injunctions in matrimonial disputes where foreign proceedings are pending and the foreign court is a convenient forum. It emphasises comity and the limited scope of Section 13 CPC.
For Future Litigation: The ruling will be cited in cross-border matrimonial disputes to resist attempts to stall foreign proceedings. It clarifies that mere non-recognition of a ground under Indian law is insufficient.
For Litigants: Spouses can pursue divorce and financial remedies in a foreign court where they have substantial connections, without being restrained by Indian anti-suit injunctions.

Lawcurb Quick Insight

The Court noted that the UK proceedings were at the jurisdiction stage. It was premature to assume a decree would be passed on irretrievable breakdown and would be unenforceable in India. The anti-suit injunction was based on speculation.

Lawcurb Practice Note

Advocates seeking anti-suit injunction must prove oppressive or vexatious foreign proceedings and that no alternative forum exists. For respondents, emphasise comity, convenient forum, and the limited scope of Section 13 CPC.

Remember this Ratio

Anti-suit injunction is a drastic remedy to be granted sparingly; mere non-recognition of a foreign divorce ground does not justify restraining foreign proceedings.

Final Outcome

Civil Appeal dismissed.
High Court judgment dated December 15, 2025 upheld.
Anti-suit injunction order dated November 1, 2025 set aside.
UK Family Court proceedings may continue.
Parties at liberty to challenge final orders of UK Family Court in accordance with law.
Pending applications disposed of.

Lawcurb Verdict

This judgment is a significant affirmation of comity of courts and the limited scope of anti-suit injunctions. By upholding the UK as the convenient forum, the Supreme Court protects the right of a spouse to pursue remedies in a foreign court with substantial connections. The ruling clarifies that mere non-recognition of a foreign divorce ground is insufficient to stall foreign proceedings. A well-reasoned judgment that balances equity, comity, and matrimonial justice.

Exam Lens

Question 1: What are the principles governing the grant of an anti-suit injunction?
Answer: The defendant must be amenable to personal jurisdiction; refusal must defeat ends of justice; comity of courts must be respected; and the foreign proceedings must be oppressive, vexatious, or in a forum non conveniens. The remedy is discretionary, equitable, and sparingly granted.

Question 2: What is the doctrine of forum non conveniens? How was it applied in this case?
Answer: Forum non conveniens allows a court to decline jurisdiction if a more appropriate forum exists. In this case, the UK was the convenient forum because the parties had resided in London for years and had substantial connections. The Indian court could not stall UK proceedings.

Question 3: Can an anti-suit injunction be granted merely because the foreign proceedings are based on a ground not recognised under Indian law?
Answer: No. The Supreme Court held that mere non-recognition of a ground for divorce under Indian law does not justify an anti-suit injunction. The foreign court is presumed to exercise jurisdiction correctly, and the ground must be tested at trial.

This report is prepared by Lawcurb for educational and informational purposes only. It is a concise summary of the judgment and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to refer to the original judgment before relying on any legal proposition.