Mihir Prakash Bajoria v. Vidushi Jain Bajoria (2026 INSC 1034) — LAW LIBRARY. Online
LAW LIBRARY. OnlineHeadnote · Short Note
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA · CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION

Mihir Prakash Bajoria v. Vidushi Jain Bajoria

LOK 2026 (9) SC 222 : 2026 INSC 1034 : 2026 KHC OnLine 6737 · C.A. No. 13096 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 15849 of 2026) · Decided 22 September 2026

Bench
S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. (Judgment by N.V. Anjaria, J.)
Impugned order
Judgment dated 15.12.2025 of a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta in FMAT No. 466 of 2025. It set aside the ex parte anti-suit injunction granted on 01.11.2025 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 1656 of 2025
Parties
Appellant: the husband, plaintiff in the Alipore title suit. Respondent: the wife, petitioner in the divorce and financial proceedings before the Central Family Court, United Kingdom
Statutes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Ss. 13, 14 and 151 and O. XXXIX Rr. 1 & 2; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S. 13; Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act, 1973 (UK), S. 5(2)(d)
Cases referred
Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd., (2003) 4 SCC 341; Dinesh Singh Thakur v. Sonal Thakur, (2018) 17 SCC 12 (applied); Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Micromax Informatics FZE, (2025) 9 SCC 750; Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1098; Spiliada Maritime Corpn. v. Cansulex Ltd., (1986) 3 All ER 843; Raaj Unocal Lubricants Ltd. v. Apple Energy Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2395; Mashreq Bank PSC v. Indian Overseas Bank, 2021 SCC OnLine Guj 2678; Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi, (1991) 3 SCC 451 (cited by the appellant)
Counsel
For the appellant: Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Senior Advocate (the submissions are recorded as made by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Senior Advocate). For the respondent: Ms. Shobha Gupta and Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Senior Advocates
Result
Appeal dismissed. The High Court’s judgment vacating the anti-suit injunction is upheld. Either party may challenge further orders of the UK Family Court, including the conditional divorce order of 17.06.2026, before the competent forum

Catchwords

Anti-suit injunction — Matrimonial dispute — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Ss. 13, 14 and O. XXXIX Rr. 1 & 2 — Husband’s divorce petition under S. 13, Hindu Marriage Act pending at Alipore — Wife’s divorce and financial proceedings in the UK Family Court on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage — Ex parte anti-suit injunction by an Indian civil court — Principles: personal jurisdiction, ends of justice, comity of courts; oppressive or vexatious proceedings; burden on the party alleging — To be granted sparingly, never as a routine — Possible non-recognition of a future foreign decree under S. 13, CPC is speculative and premature — Dinesh Singh Thakur applied “by reverse logic” — Forum non conveniens — Matrimonial home in London; wife a habitual resident of the UK — Held, the UK court was the forum conveniens; the injunction was rightly vacated. — Foreign proceedings still at an inchoate stage — Restraining them a patent error.

Short Note

The husband filed for divorce in Alipore, and the wife filed in the UK Family Court on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The husband then obtained an ex parte anti-suit injunction from an Alipore civil court restraining her from pursuing the UK case. The Calcutta High Court vacated it, and the Supreme Court upheld that decision. Anti-suit injunctions are equitable orders aimed at a party, not at the foreign court. They are to be granted sparingly, because careless use undermines comity and intrudes on the sovereign jurisdiction of foreign courts. That the wife relied on a ground not found in the Hindu Marriage Act did not justify a restraint. Whether a future UK decree would be recognised in India under Section 13, CPC was speculation at a stage when every issue, including the UK court’s jurisdiction, was still open. The couple had made their matrimonial home in London, so the UK court was the forum conveniens. Restraining foreign proceedings that had not concluded was a patent error. The Court expressed no view on the UK conditional divorce order of 17.06.2026, which either party may challenge.

Headnote

  1. What an anti-suit injunction is. An anti-suit injunction restrains a party from instituting or prosecuting a case in another court, including a foreign court. It is governed by equitable principles, and the general parameters for injunctions apply. Indian courts have power to grant it against a party over whom they have personal jurisdiction. It is a direction to that party, not to the foreign court; a court in one sovereign jurisdiction cannot stay proceedings in another. [Paras 5–5.2.3]
  2. Governing principles. Under Modi Entertainment Network, the defendant must be amenable to the court’s personal jurisdiction, and refusing the injunction must defeat the ends of justice. Comity of courts must also be respected. Where more than one forum is available, the court may restrain proceedings that are oppressive, vexatious or in a forum non conveniens. Oppression or vexation and irreparable harm are the twin prime considerations. The burden of proving them, or that the forum is inconvenient, ordinarily lies on the party who alleges it. [Paras 5.2–5.3, 5.5]
  3. To be granted sparingly, never as a routine. An anti-suit injunction is not granted as a matter of course or for the asking. Unless pure legal or jurisdictional considerations apply, the court should be extremely slow to stall proceedings in a foreign court. Frequent and careless use undermines comity and amounts to interjection into the sovereign judicial jurisdiction of a foreign court. It can also produce jurisdictional conflict and a multiplicity of proceedings. Dinesh Singh Thakur followed. [Paras 5.5.1–5.6]
  4. A ground unknown to the Hindu Marriage Act does not justify restraint. The husband argued that a UK decree on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage would not be enforceable in India under Section 13, CPC. That was a misplaced ground, given the stage of the UK proceedings. The main proceedings were pending, every issue including the UK court’s jurisdiction was at large, and the wife still had to establish her ground on evidence. The trial court acted on the speculation that a decree would follow, a premature ground at a premature stage. Dinesh Singh Thakur, where a husband was refused an injunction against the wife’s US divorce petition on the same ground, applies here by reverse logic. [Paras 5.6.1–5.7.1]
  5. Forum non conveniens: the UK court was the convenient forum. The doctrine applies where several fora are available. The court seized of a matter may examine whether another forum is more suitable for the interests of the parties and the ends of justice, and it is applied particularly in matrimonial proceedings. Here the parties lived together in London before and after the marriage, at their matrimonial home in Kensington. The husband had lived in the UK since the age of 14–15. The wife, on a student visa, was a habitual resident there, and was living at that address when the husband sued in India. Their prolonged matrimonial life, centre of interests and financial arrangements were in the UK. The wife’s proceedings rested on substantial connecting factors, and the High Court rightly held the UK court to be the forum conveniens. [Paras 5.4–5.4.4, 5.8–5.8.1]
  6. Foreign proceedings at an inchoate stage. That the foreign proceedings have not yet concluded is itself a factor against an anti-suit injunction. No legitimate ground ordinarily arises to stay proceedings that have not culminated in a final decision. The Alipore court ignored that the UK proceedings were still pending and thereby committed a patent error. [Para 5.9]
  7. Later developments left open. While the appeal was pending, a UK District Judge passed a conditional divorce order on 17.06.2026. On the husband’s application, the Supreme Court on 30.07.2026 restrained the wife from proceeding on it. The appeal was confined to the injunction of 01.11.2025. Either party may challenge further or final orders of the UK court, including the order of 17.06.2026, before the competent forum. The Court expressed no opinion on that order, and its observations are not to influence those proceedings. [Paras 6–9]

Facts in Brief

Contentions

Appellant (husband)

The UK proceedings were parallel and oppressive, and the injunction prevented multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions. Both parties are Indian citizens married under the Hindu Marriage Act, and the wife’s ground is not recognised under that Act, so a UK decree would be open to challenge under Section 13, CPC (Y. Narasimha Rao). The husband’s Indian suit came first; the wife sued in the UK to pressure him.

Respondent (wife)

Reliance on possible non-recognition of a future decree is premature. Recognition depends on the jurisdiction exercised and natural justice, not on the name of the ground. Y. Narasimha Rao concerns decrees already passed, not pending proceedings. The matrimonial home was in the UK, where the husband had lived since the age of 14–15, so the English court is the appropriate forum. No case for an anti-suit injunction was made out.

Order

The judgment of the High Court at Calcutta dated 15.12.2025 in FMAT No. 466 of 2025, which set aside the order of 01.11.2025 in Title Suit No. 1656 of 2025 and vacated the anti-suit injunction, is just and legal and is upheld. The appeal is dismissed, and pending interlocutory applications do not survive. [Paras 10–11]

Prepared by LAW LIBRARY. Online. This summary is for quick reference only. It is not a substitute for the full text of the judgment, which should be read before relying on it.