Cross-border matrimonial disputes can become legally complex when spouses have connections with more than one country and divorce or financial proceedings are initiated before courts in different jurisdictions. A recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India has examined this issue in detail, particularly the principles governing anti-suit injunctions, forum non conveniens, judicial comity, and parallel matrimonial proceedings before Indian and foreign courts.
In Mihir Prakash Bajoria v. Vidushi Jain Bajoria, Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026, decided on 22 September 2026, the Supreme Court considered whether an Indian court was justified in restraining a spouse from continuing matrimonial and financial proceedings before the UK Family Court. The judgment provides an important discussion on when an Indian court may exercise its power to grant an anti-suit injunction against proceedings pending before a foreign court.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose from a matrimonial relationship involving substantial connections with both India and the United Kingdom. The parties married in Kolkata on 15 December 2018 according to Hindu customs and had lived together in London during significant periods of their matrimonial life. The record also noted that the parties subsequently returned to India and later began living separately.
In September 2024, the husband instituted matrimonial proceedings before the Alipore Family Court under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage. Subsequently, in October 2024, the wife initiated divorce proceedings before the UK Family Court and also commenced ancillary financial proceedings seeking maintenance and related monetary reliefs.
This resulted in parallel proceedings in two jurisdictions, raising questions about jurisdiction, appropriate forum, recognition of a possible foreign decree, and the possibility of conflicting proceedings.
What Is an Anti-Suit Injunction?
An anti-suit injunction is an order by which a court restrains a party subject to its jurisdiction from instituting or continuing proceedings before another court, including a court located in a foreign country.
The Supreme Court explained that Indian courts do possess the power to grant anti-suit injunctions, but that the power is discretionary and governed by established equitable principles. Importantly, such an injunction does not directly command or control the foreign court. Instead, it operates against the party who is within the jurisdiction of the Indian court.
The distinction is significant. Courts in one sovereign jurisdiction do not possess appellate or supervisory authority over courts in another sovereign jurisdiction. Therefore, an anti-suit injunction is directed toward the litigant rather than toward the foreign court itself.
Principles Governing an Anti-Suit Injunction
The Supreme Court referred to the principles laid down in Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd. These include consideration of whether the defendant is amenable to the personal jurisdiction of the court, whether refusing the injunction would defeat the ends of justice, and the principle of comity of courts.
Where more than one forum is available, the court may also consider which forum is appropriate having regard to the convenience of the parties. Proceedings that are oppressive, vexatious, or instituted before a forum that is inappropriate may become relevant to the exercise of this discretion.
However, the judgment makes clear that an anti-suit injunction is not a routine remedy. The court should be slow to interfere with proceedings pending before a foreign court, particularly because such an order may affect the exercise of jurisdiction by another sovereign judicial system.
The Importance of Judicial Comity
One of the central concepts discussed by the Supreme Court is judicial comity.
Courts operating in different countries may each have jurisdictional connections with the same dispute. In such situations, unrestricted interference by one court with proceedings pending before another country’s court can result in jurisdictional conflict and multiple proceedings.
The Supreme Court therefore emphasised caution. Frequent or unmindful use of anti-suit injunctions can undermine the principle of comity between courts and potentially create further litigation rather than resolving the underlying dispute.
The judgment also relied upon the earlier decision in Dinesh Singh Thakur v. Sonal Thakur, where the Court stressed that anti-suit injunctions should be granted sparingly and with particular caution when they concern proceedings before a foreign court.
Forum Non Conveniens and Cross-Border Matrimonial Litigation
Another important aspect of the judgment is the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
The doctrine essentially concerns situations where multiple forums may have jurisdiction and one forum may be considered more appropriate or convenient for adjudicating the dispute. The Supreme Court explained that the doctrine is particularly relevant in cross-border disputes where more than one jurisdiction has meaningful connections with the parties or subject matter.
The Court referred to the principle that an adequate alternative forum capable of providing a fair and adequate remedy should exist before the doctrine is applied. The alternative forum does not necessarily have to provide remedies identical to those available in another jurisdiction.
In matrimonial disputes, factors such as the parties’ residence, matrimonial home, financial arrangements, duration of residence, and other connecting circumstances can be relevant when determining the appropriate forum.
Why the UK Was Considered a Connected Forum in This Case
In the present matter, the Supreme Court examined the parties’ long-standing connections with the UK.
The Court noted that the parties had spent substantial periods of their matrimonial life in London. The judgment records that the parties had established their matrimonial home and financial arrangements in the UK and that the wife was residing there when the Indian proceedings were initiated. These circumstances were treated as substantial connecting factors for considering the appropriate forum.
The Court consequently upheld the High Court’s reasoning concerning the forum conveniens issue in the circumstances of the case.
This does not mean that every matrimonial dispute involving an Indian citizen and a foreign country will necessarily be decided in the foreign jurisdiction. Forum-related questions are highly dependent upon the factual and jurisdictional circumstances of each case.
Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage and the Timing of the Challenge
A significant argument before the Indian courts concerned the wife’s reliance on irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground in the UK proceedings.
The husband argued, among other things, that the ground was not recognised as an independent ground of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act and that a future foreign decree based upon such a ground could face issues regarding recognition or enforceability in India.
The Supreme Court considered this reasoning premature at the stage when the anti-suit injunction had been granted. The Court noted that the UK proceedings were still pending and that important issues, including jurisdiction, remained under consideration.
The Court also referred to its earlier decision in Dinesh Singh Thakur, where the mere fact that a foreign divorce petition relied upon a ground unavailable under Indian matrimonial law did not by itself establish that the foreign spouse would ultimately obtain a decree.
Proceedings Still Pending: Why Stage Matters
The stage of foreign proceedings was another important consideration.
The Supreme Court observed that when proceedings before a foreign court are still at an incomplete stage and have not resulted in a final decision, an anti-suit injunction should not ordinarily be granted merely on speculative assumptions about what the foreign court might ultimately decide.
In this case, the Court found that the trial court had proceeded on a premature assumption concerning the possible outcome of the UK proceedings.
This highlights an important procedural principle: courts must assess the actual stage and circumstances of foreign proceedings rather than deciding the issue solely on the basis of a possible future outcome.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which had set aside the anti-suit injunction granted by the Alipore Trial Court.
The Court held that the High Court’s decision was legally justified in the circumstances presented before it. The appeal was dismissed.
The judgment also recorded that during the pendency of the appeal, a conditional divorce decree had been passed by an English court on 17 June 2026. The Supreme Court clarified that its examination in the present appeal remained confined to the anti-suit injunction issued by the Alipore Trial Court and did not determine the parties’ rights in relation to subsequent proceedings.
Key Takeaways for Cross-Border Matrimonial Disputes
The judgment highlights several principles relevant to international matrimonial litigation:
1. Anti-suit injunctions are exceptional remedies.
They are not ordinarily granted as a matter of course and require careful examination of the circumstances.
2. The foreign court’s sovereignty must be respected.
An Indian court does not directly control the proceedings of a foreign court. An anti-suit injunction operates against the party before the Indian court.
3. Judicial comity is important.
Courts must exercise caution before interfering with proceedings pending in another jurisdiction.
4. Forum non conveniens is fact-specific.
Residence, matrimonial home, financial arrangements and other connecting factors may be relevant in determining the appropriate forum.
5. A possible future foreign decree may not justify premature intervention.
Courts must consider the actual stage of the foreign proceedings and the issues that remain undecided.
6. Cross-border matrimonial disputes require jurisdiction-specific analysis.
The existence of proceedings in India does not automatically determine whether a foreign court can or cannot examine the dispute.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Mihir Prakash Bajoria v. Vidushi Jain Bajoria provides a detailed examination of the limits and principles surrounding anti-suit injunctions in cross-border matrimonial disputes.
The decision demonstrates that when matrimonial litigation spans multiple countries, questions of jurisdiction cannot be determined merely by looking at where the marriage was solemnised or where one party has initiated proceedings. Courts may examine the parties’ residential history, matrimonial home, financial connections, pending proceedings, available forums and the stage of litigation.
For individuals involved in international matrimonial disputes, the judgment also illustrates the importance of obtaining jurisdiction-specific legal advice before initiating or contesting proceedings in India or abroad. The appropriate legal strategy will depend on the specific facts, applicable matrimonial law, jurisdictional rules and procedural stage of the proceedings.
