Summary
The Supreme Court upheld refusal to restrain the wife’s Florida matrimonial proceedings. Though she was amenable to the Indian Family Court’s personal jurisdiction, the husband had not shown grave injustice or oppressive or vexatious foreign proceedings. Both spouses were US citizens and the husband himself lived there. The foreign petition’s asserted divorce ground did not itself justify an injunction; applicable-law objections could be addressed there. The decision did not finally recognise or enforce a foreign divorce decree.
Issues
- Whether personal jurisdiction over the wife sufficed for an anti-suit injunction.
- Whether grave injustice or oppressive foreign proceedings were established.
- Whether reliance on an allegedly unavailable divorce ground required restraint.
Provisions considered
- Section 41(a) and (b), in the quoted version, Specific Relief Act, 1963The Court considered the statutory restrictions alongside the equitable anti-suit jurisdiction and the distinction concerning proceedings in foreign courts. The appeal ultimately failed on the facts and equitable requirements. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 21)
Held
- Indian courts possess in-personam power to restrain a party amenable to their jurisdiction in an appropriate case. It is an equitable power to be used cautiously and sparingly, respecting comity; personal jurisdiction alone does not compel its exercise. (¶¶ 9, 10, 13, 14)
- The wife’s ordinary residence and documents established amenability to the Gurugram Family Court, but the husband showed no grave injustice from continuation in Florida. Both parties were US citizens, Florida had concurrent jurisdiction in the case, and the husband lived there and pursued the Indian injunction through a power-of-attorney holder. (¶ 18)
- The allegation that irretrievable breakdown was unavailable under the Hindu Marriage Act did not establish that the wife would necessarily obtain relief improperly. The husband had raised the governing-law objection in Florida, where evidence and the issue could be considered; wrongful exercise of jurisdiction could not simply be presumed. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- On the peculiar facts the foreign proceedings were not oppressive or vexatious. Refusal to restrain them did not adjudicate the marriage’s dissolution or finally settle recognition or execution of a future foreign decree. (¶¶ 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
Result
Husband’s appeal dismissed without costs; vacation of the interim anti-suit injunction left undisturbed.