Supreme Court Refuses Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute: Dinesh Singh Thakur vs. Sonal Thakur (17 April 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 17 April 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 330

Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J. and R. Banumathi, J.

Can a court in India prevent a person from pursuing a divorce case in a foreign court, especially when a similar case is already ongoing in India? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this complex issue in a case involving a couple who are citizens of both India and the United States. The core question revolved around whether the husband was entitled to an anti-suit injunction to stop his wife from proceeding with a divorce petition in a US court. The Supreme Court, in this case, examined the principles governing the grant of anti-suit injunctions and whether the facts of the case warranted such an injunction. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice R. Banumathi.

Case Background

Dinesh Singh Thakur (the appellant-husband) and Sonal Thakur (the respondent-wife) were married on February 20, 1995, following Hindu customs. At the time of their marriage, the husband was working in the United States of America (USA), and the wife joined him there on a Dependent Visa. They both became citizens of the USA in May 2003. They also obtained Person of Indian Origin (PIO) status in June 2003 and Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) status in July 2006.

In 2016, the husband filed a petition under Sections 13 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the Family Court at Gurgaon, seeking a divorce. Subsequently, the wife filed a divorce petition in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, USA, citing irretrievable breakdown of marriage as the ground for divorce. Following this, the husband filed a civil suit in the District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, seeking a permanent injunction to stop the wife from pursuing the divorce petition in the USA.

Initially, the District Judge granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of the husband on September 26, 2016. However, this injunction was vacated on October 18, 2016, after the wife filed an application for its vacation. The husband then appealed to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which dismissed his petition on November 3, 2016. Finally, the husband approached the Supreme Court of India by way of a special leave petition.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon initially granted an ex parte ad interim injunction on September 26, 2016, restraining the wife from pursuing the divorce petition in the USA. However, upon the wife’s application, the District Judge vacated this injunction on October 18, 2016. The husband appealed this decision to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, which dismissed his revision petition on November 3, 2016. The High Court upheld the decision of the District Judge, leading the husband to file a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which outlines the circumstances under which an injunction cannot be granted. Specifically, the court examined clauses (a) and (b) of Section 41:

• Section 41(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963:
  “to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending at the institution of the suit in which the injunction is sought, unless such restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings;”

• Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963:
  “to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought;”

The court also referred to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, under which the husband had filed the divorce petition in India.

Arguments

Appellant-Husband’s Arguments:

• The husband argued that since he had already filed a divorce petition in India and the wife had been served notice and had appeared in the case, the proceedings initiated by the wife in the US court should be stayed.
• He contended that the wife’s action of filing a divorce petition in the US, after receiving notice of the divorce petition in India, was an abuse of the process of law and would lead to a multiplicity of proceedings.
• The husband also argued that the wife was residing in Gurgaon, making the court in Gurgaon the most convenient forum for both parties.
• He stated that the High Court did not consider Section 41(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which is relevant in this context and only considered Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Respondent-Wife’s Arguments:

• The wife argued that her petition in the Florida court was not only for divorce but also for other reliefs such as equitable distribution of marital assets, child support, alimony, and partition, which are not available under Indian law.
• She contended that staying the proceedings in the Florida court would cause irreparable loss and injury to her and her children.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant-husband is entitled to a decree of anti-suit injunction against the respondent-wife?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following cases and legal provisions:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court referred to Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Western Company of North America [(1987) 1 SCC 496]* to interpret Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, clarifying that it applies to injunctions within Indian courts.
• The Court cited Modi Entertainment Network and Another vs. WSG Cricket PTE Ltd. [2003 (4) SCC 341]* to reiterate the principles for granting anti-suit injunctions, emphasizing personal jurisdiction, defeat of justice, and comity.
• The Court mentioned Vivek Rai Gupta vs. Niyati Gupta, [Civil Appeal No. 1123 of 2006]* to support the view that execution of a foreign decree can be resisted on available legal grounds.
• The Court took note of Harmeeta Singh vs. Rajat Taneja [2003 (67) DRJ 58]*, where the Delhi High Court had granted an anti-suit injunction because the parties had lived together for a short time in the US.
• The Court referred to Y. Narasimha Rao & Others vs. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and Another [(1991) 3 SCC 451]* to underscore the rules for recognizing foreign matrimonial judgments, focusing on jurisdiction and grounds under the matrimonial law of the parties.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Concurrent Jurisdiction: The Court acknowledged that both the Indian and US courts had jurisdiction over the matter, as both parties were citizens of both countries.
• No Grave Injustice: The Court found no evidence that the husband would suffer grave injustice if the injunction was not granted. The husband himself was residing in the US and had initiated the proceedings through a power of attorney.
• No Oppression or Vexation: The Court held that the proceedings in the US court could not be deemed oppressive or vexatious.
• Reliefs in US Court: The US court could provide reliefs such as equitable distribution of marital assets, child support, and alimony, which are not available under Indian law.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principles governing anti-suit injunctions and the specific facts of the case.

The court considered that the husband failed to demonstrate that not granting an anti-suit injunction would lead to a defeat of the ends of justice. The court also noted that the wife had filed for divorce in the US on grounds not available in Indian law, but this did not mean that she would succeed in getting a divorce decree in the US court.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on a careful analysis of the facts and the applicable legal principles. The Court emphasized the need for caution when considering anti-suit injunctions, especially when they involve foreign courts.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

• “Anti-Suit Injunctions are meant to restrain a party to a suit/proceeding from instituting or prosecuting a case in another court, including a foreign court.”
• “It is a well-settled law that the courts in India have power to issue anti-suit injunction to a party over whom it has personal jurisdiction, in an appropriate case.”
• “The mere fact that the respondent-wife has filed the case on the ground which is not available to her under the Act, doesn’t means that there are likelihood of her being succeeding in getting a decree for divorce.”

There was no dissenting opinion in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Indian courts can issue anti-suit injunctions, but they must be cautious and careful, especially when dealing with foreign courts.
• An anti-suit injunction will not be granted if the court finds that there is no possibility of injustice being caused to the party seeking such an injunction.
• The court will not grant an anti-suit injunction if it finds that the proceedings in the foreign court are not oppressive or vexatious.
• The mere fact that a foreign court is considering a ground for divorce not available under Indian law is not sufficient to warrant an anti-suit injunction.
• The court will consider the availability of other reliefs in the foreign court while deciding on the grant of an anti-suit injunction.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an anti-suit injunction will not be granted if the court finds that there is no possibility of injustice being caused to the party seeking such an injunction. The court also held that the proceedings in the Foreign Court cannot be said to be oppressive or vexatious. This decision reinforces the principle that courts should be cautious in granting anti-suit injunctions, especially when dealing with foreign courts. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the husband, refusing to grant an anti-suit injunction against his wife. The Court held that the proceedings in the US court were not oppressive or vexatious and that the husband had not demonstrated that he would suffer grave injustice if the injunction was not granted. The decision emphasizes the cautious approach that Indian courts must adopt when considering anti-suit injunctions, particularly in cases involving foreign jurisdictions.