SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Naina Surat Rawat vs Mukul Goyal on 15 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 254/2021

NAINA SURAT RAWAT ….. Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Ashish Deep Verma, Mr.Vijay
Singh and Ms.Kamya Ritu Verma,
Advocates

versus

.MUKUL GOYAL . ….. Defendants
Through: Ms.Neelima Tripathi, Sr.Advocate
and Ms.Swati Bhushan Sharma,
Advocates

CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 15.07.2021
(Through video conferencing)
IA No. 6602/2021

Qua this application filed by the applicant/plaintiff seeking exemption
from Court fees within a period of six weeks which was allowed vide order
dated 27.5.2021 subject to just exceptions, at the outset, an objection was
raised on behalf of the defendant by learned senior counsel for the defendant
that the Court Fees has still not been deposited qua which learned counsel
for the plaintiff submits that in terms of an Administrative Rule dated
1.4.2021 in cases filed before the E Court it was incumbent for the litigant to
pay the Court Fees himself/herself and thus the counsel could not deposit the
Court Fee though it had been informed by the Registry it could be so
allowed to be deposited if permitted by the Court.

Inter alia, it has been submitted that the applicant/plaintiff could not

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28
deposit the Court Fees herself due to financial indigence.

Taking into account the urgency in the matter that a financial
statement is stated to be required to be submitted by the applicant/plaintiff
pursuant to proceedings in the Family Court at London which proceedings
are listed for the date 20.8.2021, in the interest of justice, counsel for the
plaintiff has been allowed to deposit the Court Fee today on behalf of the
plaintiff which has since been deposited.

In view thereof, IA 6602/2021 stands disposed of and calls for no
further action.

IA No. 6603/2021 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 2 CPC)

1. IA No. 6603/2021 is an application filed by the plaintiff/applicant under
Order XXXIX Rule 1 2 of the CPC seeking an anti-suit injunction
against the divorce petition filed by the defendant against her at the
Family Court, East London and seeks a restraint against him from
proceeding in the said proceedings.

2. During the course of submissions made on the date 27.5.2021, vide
order dated 27.05.2021 an opportunity had been granted to the defendant
to file the written statement within 30 days which has not been filed so
far. The reply to IA No. 6603/2021, the application under Order
XXXIX Rule 1 2 of the CPC for which time was sought on behalf of
the defendant to file the reply, has also not been filed. The said
proceedings of the date 27.5.2021 however indicate that it had been
observed therein to the effect “Presently, the plaintiff is in U.K. on a
destitute visa.”

3. The matter has been assigned to this Court today.

4. On behalf of the defendant, it was urged that there was no

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28
urgency in the matter in as much as the proceedings before the Family
Court at London are fixed for 20.8.2021 in the divorce proceedings
that have been filed by the defendant which aspect was however
refuted on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff by learned counsel for the
applicant submitting to the effect that vide communication dated
30.4.2021 in case No.ZZ21D25295 the applicant/plaintiff was called
upon to file her standard form financial statement with the Court, i.e.,
the Family Court at East London giving full details of her property
and income and was also called upon to sign and swear the statement
of truth contained within that document by the date 16.7.2021, ie.
tomorrow and also to comply with other compliances as mentioned in
the said letter by the date 6.8.2021 apart from the proceedings being
pending before the Family Court at London for 20.8.2021. It was thus
submitted on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff that in the event the anti-
suit injunction, as prayed by the applicant/plaintiff, was not granted
and she was made to submit her financial statement for the date
16.7.2021, she would be presumed to have joined the proceedings and
conceded to the jurisdiction of the Family Court at London which
would thus be gravely prejudicial to her rights. The contents of the
said communication dated 30.4.2021 read to the effect:

Notice of a First appointment In the Family Court at East
London
Case Number ZZ21D25295
Applicant Mukul Goyal
Respondent Naina Surat Rawat

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28
The marriage of Mukul Goyal and Naina Surat Rawat
Take Notice that
By 16th July 2021 you must file a standard form of financial
statement with the Court which gives full details of your property and
income. You must sign and swear the statement of truth contained
within that document. At the same time each party must exchange a
copy of the statement with the [legal representative of the] other
party. You will therefore need to contact the other party [or their
legal representative] not later than the above date and agree when
the exchange shall take place. The exchange may be carried out by
post. You must use the appropriate standard form of statement (Form
E, E1 or E2) which you may obtain from the Court office.
By 6th August 2021 you must file with the Court and the [legal
representative of the ] other party :

 a concise statement of the apparent issues between yourself
yourself and the other party;

 a chronology;

 a questionnaire setting out the further information and
documents you require from the other party, or a statement that
no information or documents are required;

 a Notice in Form G.

The First Appointment will be heard remotely by

The District Judge in chambers at the Family Court at East
London, 6th and 7th Floors, 11 Westferry Circus, Entrance in
Columbus Courtyard, London, E14 4HD

On 20th August 2021
At 12:00 pm

The probable length of the hearing is 1 hour

No parties are to attend court. All parties to these proceedings are
to e-mail with their contact details at
[email protected] uk 48 hours before the
hearing.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28
Warning Notices

1. the next hearing will be a remote hearing by Cloud Video
Platform (CVP)/Teams which will be in private. No person
apart from the parties and their legal representatives may be
present at the time of the hearing.

2. All attendees at the hearing are warned that they must not in
any way record the hearing as pursuant to S9 Contempt of
Court Act 1981 such action will be a contempt of court which
may be punishable by fine or imprisonment.

You and your legal representative, if you have one, must
participate in the appointment. At the appointment you must
provide the Court with a written estimate (in Form H) of any
legal costs which you have incurred. Non-compliance may
render you liable to costs penalties.

Dated: 30th April 2021.”

5. It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint that
the marriage between the parties to the suit was solemnized on 4.2.2020
according to Hindu rites and customs at Dehradun and that thereafter the
applicant/plaintiff and the defendant resided at Delhi but that the
plaintiff/applicant had been tormented by the defendant’s parents and
sisters and that the defendant left his parental house at Delhi and flew
back to London on 16.2.2020 and had asked the plaintiff/applicant to
leave the matrimonial home within a couple of days and to live with her
parents at Navi Mumbai from 18.2.2020. The plaintiff/applicant has
further submitted that thereafter she got busy in preparing her
application for spouse visa so that she could live with the defendant at
London at the earliest, but that due to the lockdown announced in India
due to the ongoing COVID-19 crisis her application could not be
disposed of and that she got her Visa for U.K. on 27.7.2020 and planned

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28
to go to the U.K. to live with her spouse, i.e., the defendant and arrived
in London on 3.8.2020 with dreams of starting her happy married life
with the defendant.

6. The plaintiff alleges that in around two weeks of her arrival at London
she was shocked to see polyamorous behaviours of Katherine and Erol
living in the apartment of the defendant and it was also indicated that
Erol was also bisexual and polyamorous which was a complete shock for
the plaintiff and that the inexplicable mentally traumatic incidents of
polyamorous behaviours between the defendant, i.e., her spouse,
Katherine and Erol disturbed her and caused her great discomfort but to
her dismay the defendant threatened her to adapt with this lifestyle or to
go back to her parental home.

7. Inter alia, the plaintiff has also submitted that the defendant had also
become more violent explaining to the plaintiff that Erol had
disapproved the plaintiff and that the defendant continued to shout at her
and pressurized her to go back to India as she was unable to adapt to the
bisexual behaviour and polyamorous culture and that the defendant also
became violent and tore the plaintiff’s jumpsuit and broke her mobile
phones, laptops and I pads and made his interactions with the plaintiff
very transactional while he continued to enjoy with his polyamorous
cohabitant partners Erol and Katherine.

8. The plaintiff and the defendant are stated to have returned to their
matrimonial home on 30.10.2020 whereupon the plaintiff was mentally
and physically harassed by the defendant and his parental family and
sisters and on 11.11.2020, the defendant and his family members
forcibly booked the plaintiff’s flight for her parental home at Navi

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28
Mumbai, but on 16.11.2020 the plaintiff left her matrimonial home and
took refuge at her cousin’s place and reached her parental home on
18.11.2020 and made a detailed complaint on 19.11.2020 to the Mumbai
Police against the defendant and his parents for severe mental, physical
and emotional harassment meted out to her. The plaintiff submits that
despite the same, the defendant managed to escape to London in
November, 2020 and the parents of the defendant even fraudulently
published a public notice on 22.11.2020 in the National Daily Sunday
Express, Mumbai Edition, stating that they had disowned the defendant
and the plaintiff with an intent to escape from their liabilities towards the
plaintiff and to plead their innocence and of their being senior citizens.

9. The plaintiff has further submitted that FIR bearing No. 252/2020 was
registered by the Mumbai Police on 25.11.2020. The plaintiff was
called upon also to appear in a legal case against the defendant and his
parents filed by the plaintiff seeking maintenance under
Section 125 of
the Cr.P.C. bearing Crl.M.A. No. 752/2020 and on 16.12.2020
summons were issued by the Magisterial Court for the defendant and
his parents in a legal case filed by the plaintiff against them for domestic
violence under
Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act bearing
Crl.M.A. No. 751/2020 which cases qua maintenance and domestic
violence are pending adjudication before the Magistrate’s Court at
Panvel, Navi Mumbai.

10. The plaintiff further submits that writ petition (criminal) bearing No.
422/2020 filed by the parents of the defendant seeking quashing of the
FIR was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide an order dated
4.1.2021.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28

11. A Look Out Circular (LOC) is stated to have been issued against the
defendant who did not join the investigation of the case. The plaintiff
has thus submitted that the criminal charges and maintenance
proceedings are pending adjudication in the Indian Courts and that the
defendant has unscrupulously evaded from the said proceedings in India.
The anticipatory bail application of the parents of the defendant is stated
to have been rejected vide order dated 16.1.2021 in FIR 252/2020 by the
Sessions Court at Panvel. An FIR, is submitted, to have also been got
registered on the complaint of the complainant by the Mumbai Police
against the defendant and his parents under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the
Schedule Caste and
Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Inter alia, the plaintiff has submitted that in January-February, 2021, the
defendant whilst at London after legally losing all claims, emotionally
manipulated the plaintiff to return her back to London by stating that his
state of affairs in the past was because of him being under depression
and under the influence of Erol and Katherine and that he currently
suffered from suicidal tendencies and had even ordered poison given his
loneliness and had assured the plaintiff that Erol had left for Dubai and
that they could live happily together.

12. The plaintiff has submitted that on the assurances given by the
defendant on Valentine’s day i.e. 14.2.2021 again in good faith she flew
back to London wherein the defendant cohabitated with her and
manipulated her that everything would be fine and made her do
objectionable acts in bed and made video recordings of the same and
manipulated her to sort out the differences and communicated to the
counsel that he would be a good husband and would fulfil his

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28
responsibilities but he did not stand to those assurances and started to
create nuisances, intimidated the plaintiff with lizards and snakes, broke
crockery, monitor, laptops and destroyed grocery. The plaintiff has
further submitted that on 10.3.2021 the defendant conveyed to her that
his bisexual polyamorous cohabitant of 13 years Erol had been
threatening and pressurizing him to take a divorce from the plaintiff and
that the defendant further threatened the plaintiff to leave him so that the
defendant could continue to stay with his partner Erol or else to face dire
consequences.

13. The plaintiff has submitted that due to the sudden change in the
behaviour of the defendant because of his polyamorous cohabitant of 13
years Erol as also Erol’s protest against the stay of plaintiff, as a
consequence thereof she suffered a state of shock having been deceived
in the name of love and marriage by the defendant.

14.Plaintiff has submitted that on 12.3.2021 pursuant to an unscrupulous
conspiracy she was arrested on a false complaint filed by the defendant
stating that she had threatened the defendant that she would tell his
employer that he had abused her and thereafter whilst she was in the
police custody, the defendant shifted few of her belongings to a London
hotel and when the plaintiff was released from the police custody as the
defendant’s complaint was ascertained to be manifestly false and was
closed with a no further action report for lack of evidence by the Officer
In Charge, the plaintiff was informed that she had become homeless as
she had been thrown out of the defendant’s house and a few of her
belongings were put at a London Hotel where she was thrown to live.

15. The plaintiff has further submitted that the High Commission of India

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28
came to her rescue and the plaintiff was asked by the High Commission
to share a detailed statement with them as it was decided by the High
Commission that they would officially take the matter of the plaintiff’s
arrest with the UK Government, Foreign Commonwealth and
Development Office (FCDO).

16. The plaintiff has further contended that on 19.3.2021, the UK
Government agency came to her rescue as their assistance was requested
and the Officer In charge, London Police, who interviewed the plaintiff
on 12.3.2021 concluded that the plaintiff herself was infact a vulnerable
victim of domestic violence suffering in silence in a foreign land at the
hands of the defendant. The plaintiff has further submitted that on her
arrest in a false complaint on 12.3.2021, the defendant had filed an
application seeking adjournment in the maintenance case Crl.M.A.No.
752/2020 before the Court of the Magistrate on 20.3.2021 stating that
the plaintiff was living in London for more than a month under his
dependence.

17.It is further submitted by the plaintiff that since 22.3.2021, a non-profit
organization identified by the UK Government agency namely ‘Refuge’
which provides support to high risk victims of domestic violence or
other gender based violence in the UK has been providing support to the
plaintiff and since then Ms.Helen Brooks, an Independent Gender Based
Violence Advocate (IGVA, from Refuge), had been supporting the
plaintiff and has registered the plaintiff with a GP for her mental health
treatment as she continues to suffer from trauma, depression, anxiety,
panic attacks, shame suicidal intents due to the abuse suffered at the
hands of defendant who ultimately dumped her out of the defendant-

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28
Erol’s house in a well-planned manner to stay committed towards his
bisexual polyamorous cohabitant of 13 years, Erol who disapproved of
the plaintiff’s stay in the house.

18. Inter alia, the plaintiff submitted that on 2.5.2021, the defendant
through his counsel served a notice to the effect:

” Notice of First Appointment before FAMILY COURT AT
EAST LONDON, U.K. Case No. ZZ21D25295 in the matter of
MUKUL GOYAL Vs. Naina Surat Rawat

From NAVEEN SHARMA ADVOCATE
[email protected]
To
[email protected], [email protected]
Date 2021-05-02 22:40

NOTICE-Family Court at East London.pdf(~541 KB)

SUB: In RE Notice of First Appointment before FAMILY
COURT AT EAST LONDON, U.K. Case No. ZZ21D25295 in
the matter of MUKUL GOYAL Vs. Naina Surat Rawat
You are intimated to TAKE NOTICE of the First Appointment
before FAMILY COURT AT EAST LONDON to be heard
remotely by (Video Conferencing/Virtual Mode) the District
Judge in Chambers at Family Court at East London on 20th
August, 2021 (20.08.2021) at 12.00 p.m. WHEREFOR the
Respondent Naina Surat Rawat is required to :-

1) File a standard form of Financial Statement with the Court
which gives full details of property and income by 16th of July,
2021 (16.07.2021);

2) File with the Court and legal representative of the applicant
the following by 6th of August, 2021 (06.08.2021):-

(a) A concise statement of apparent issues between yourself and
the other party;

(b) A chronology;

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28

(c) A questionnaire setting out the further information and
documents you require from the other party or a statement that
no information or documents are
required;

(d) A Notice in Form G;

The PDF file copy of the Notice as issued under the seal of the
Family Court is enclosed for perusal.

Kindly acknowledge receipt.

A copy this email is also directed to the local counsel of the
respondent bove named as addressee for due communication
thereof to the respondent as her legal counsel/agent. Also a
copy of the text of this mail as well as the PDF file of Notice is
also sent via whatsapp to the said legal counsel on his
Whatsapp Cellphone
no. +91 8130441280″

and on 11.5.2021 a reply was sent by the plaintiff’s counsel on whatsapp
and Email.

19. The plaintiff has thus submitted that she is entitled to the decree of anti-

suit injunction against the defendant so as to restrain him to institute
further proceedings in any foreign Court.

20. Through the application IA No. 6603/2021 under Order XXXIX Rule
1 2 of the CPC the plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff having
been married to the defendant in India as per Hindu Rites is governed by
the statutory laws of India, i.e., the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and both
the plaintiff and the defendant are amenable to the personal jurisdiction
of the Courts in India and that if the defendant succeeds in getting the
divorce decree and financial costs orders in his favour from any foreign
Court, the ends of justice will be defeated and that injustice would be
perpetuated against her despite the factum that the defendant would
settle with his bisexual polyamarous cohabitants of 13 years Erol. The

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28
plaintiff has further submitted that it would even be convenient and less
expensive in terms of costs for the defendant to contest the litigation in
India where there are already proceedings against him.

21. The plaintiff has thus sought the grant of an ex-parte anti suit
injunction against the divorce petition along with financial cost
application filed by the defendant in London in the interest of justice.

22. On behalf of the plaintiff, reliance was placed on a catena of verdicts
as under:

(1) Y. NARASIMHA RAO AND ORS. VS. Y. VENKATA LAKSHMI
AND ORS.; MANU/SC/0603/1991 with reliance on observations to the
effect;

” 13. From the aforesaid discussion the following rule can be deduced for
recognising foreign matrimonial judgment in this country. The jurisdiction
assumed by the foreign court as well as the ground on which the relief is
granted must be in accordance with the matrimonial law under which the
parties are married. The exceptions to this rule may be as follows: (i) where
the matrimonial action is filed in the forum where the respondent is
domiciled 01 habitually and permanently resides and the relief is granted on
a ground available in the matrimonial law under which the parties are
married; (ii) where the respondent voluntarily and effectively submits to the
jurisdiction of the forum as discussed above and contests the claim which is
based on a ground available under the matrimonial law under which the
parties are married; (iii) where the respondent consents to the grant of the
relief although the jurisdiction of the forum is not in accordance with the
provisions of the matrimonial law of the parties.
……….

……….

14. Since with regard to the jurisdiction of the forum as well as the ground
on which it is passed the foreign decree in the present case is not in
accordance with the Act under which the parties were married, and the
respondent had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the court or consented to
its passing, it cannot be recognised by the courts in this country and is,
therefore, unenforceable.”

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28
(2) ARUNIMA NAVEEN TAKIAR VS NAVEEN TAKIAR ON 29
JANUARY 2019 ; BOMBAY HIGH COURT NOTICE OF MOTION
NO.28 OF 2015 IN SUIT NO.880 OF 2014, on the observations therein to
the effect;

” 38. In my view, the provisions of section 1(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 has to be read with
section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which
clearly provides for jurisdiction of the Court where the petition under the
said Act shall be presented. Section nms28-15.doc 19(i) clearly provides
that such proceedings have to be presented before the District Court within
whose limits the marriage was solemnized. Admittedly in this case, the
marriage was solemnized in Mumbai and thus merely because the defendant
is having domiciled of U.K. whether by birth or by choice or otherwise
would be no significance and would not divest the jurisdiction of the Court
provided under
section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the purpose
of filing the proceedings under the provisions of the
Hindu Marriage Act,
1955.

…….

……

49. This Court also considered that the reliefs have been sought by the
defendant in the Family Court, UK against the plaintiff not under the
provisions of the
Hindu Marriage Act, either on the question of jurisdiction
or on the question of grounds for dissolution but under the English Personal
law, one that does not govern the marriage of the plaintiff and the
defendant. Considering these facts, this Court after recording the detailed
reasons, had granted ad- interim injunction in terms of prayer
clause……………”

(3) HARMEETA SINGH VS.RAJAT TANEJA; MANU/DE/0010/2003, on
the observations therein to the effect;

11. ……. the Apex Court declined to give its imprimatur to a foreign decree
which did not take into consideration the provisions of the
Hindu Marriage
Act under which the parties were married………………. .

12. On the contrary, however, Courts in India would undoubtedly have
jurisdiction over the disputes between the present spouses since the
marriage was performed in New Delhi. Having financial as well as family
support in this country it would be comparatively easy for the Defendant

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28
(Husband) to initiate divorce proceedings in this country. The plaintiff
(Wife) would not be in a position to challenge the jurisdiction of
Matrimonial Courts in New Delhi. The forum of convenience, which is a
concept well recognized and implemented in the United States of America,
would thus be New Delhi. The plaintiff (Wife) has not submitted to the
jurisdiction of the Courts in the United States of America. In the context of
their residing together as husband and wife, the plaintiff’s stay in the United
States of America could well be viewed as transient, temporary and casual.
…………….. .

13. It is in the above circumstances, till the next date of hearing, I restrain
the Defendant (Husband) from continuing with the proceedings in the
United States of America arising out of File No. 2-3-06139-1SEA pending in
the Superior Court of Washington County of King, Judge / Commissioner
Richard D. Eadi / Richard A. Jones. I further direct the Defendant to place a
copy of this Judgment before the Judge of the Superior Court of Washington
County of King for his worthy perusal.”

(4)PRITAM ASHOK SADAPHULE VS. HIMA CHUGH;

MANU/DE/0946/2013, on the observations therein to the effect;

” 11……………………

” 13. From the aforesaid discussion the following rule can be
deduced for recognising foreign matrimonial judgment in this
country. The jurisdiction assumed by the foreign court as well as the
ground on which the relief is granted must be in accordance with the
matrimonial law under which the parties are married. The exceptions
to this rule may be as follows: (i) where the matrimonial action is
filed in the forum where the respondent is domiciled 01 habitually and
permanently resides and the relief is granted on a ground available in
the matrimonial law under which the parties are married; (ii) where
the respondent voluntarily and effectively submits to the jurisdiction
of the forum as discussed above and contests the claim which is based
on a ground available under the matrimonial law under which the
parties are married; (iii) where the respondent consents to the grant
of the relief although the jurisdiction of the forum is not in
accordance with the provisions of the matrimonial law of the
parties.”

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28
…………

12. It is admitted position that both the parties are Indians and marriage
between them was solemnised at New Delhi according to Hindu rites and
ceremonies and both are governed by
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Their
marriage has been dissolved by Ilford County Court in UK on the ground of
having been broken down irretrievably which is not a ground for divorce
under the
Hindu Marriage Act. The Supreme Court in Y. Narasimha Rao
and Ors vs. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and Anr. (supra) has already held that
foreign decree of divorce granted on a ground which is not recognized in
India.

13. …………………..

14. …………………… that decree of dissolution of marriage granted by
the Ilford County Court, Essex, UK cannot be recognised as the facts of the
case fall within the purview of the exceptions of Section 13 of CPC.”

(5) NEERAJA SARAPH VS. JAYANT V. SARAPH AND ORS.;
MANU/SC/0862/1994, on the observations therein to the effect;

” 5. ……………………….. But feasibility of a legislation safeguarding
interest of women may be examined by incorporating such provisions as-

(1) no marriage between a NRI and an Indian woman which
has taken place in India may be annulled by a foreign court;
(2) provision may be made for adequate alimony to the wife in
the property of the husband both in India and abroad. (3) the
decree granted by Indian courts may be made executable in
foreign courts both on principle of comity and by entering into
reciprocal agreements like Section 44A of the Civil Procedure
Code which makes a foreign decree executable as it would have
been a decree passed by that court.””

(6) PADMINI HINDUPUR VS. ABHIJIT S BELLUR ON 24.02.2015:
DELHI HIGH COURT CS(OS) 2916/2014, on the observations therein to
the effect;

” 28. The plaintiff has not submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the
Court at Maryland; she is a resident of Delhi; parties had moved

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28
together to their matrimonial home in Arlington, Virginia. They never
stayed in Maryland; this is also not the argument of the learned
senior counsel for the defendant. It would be a forum of
inconvenience for the plaintiff to submit herself to the Court at
Maryland. ……….

29. ……..

30. …….

31. The plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for. Proceedings
before the Maryland Court at USA fixed for 27.02.2015 will be
deferred till further orders.”

(7) MODI ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK AND ORS. VS.W.S.G.
CRICKET PTE. LTD.; MANU/SC/0039/2003, on the observations therein
to the effect;

28. From the above discussion the following principles emerge: (1) In
exercising discretion to grant an anti-suit injunction the court must be
satisfied of the following aspects:-

(a) the defendant, against whom injunction is sought, is amenable to the
personal jurisdiction of the court;

(b) if the injunction is declined the ends of justice will be defeated and
injustice will be perpetuated; and

(c) the principle of comity — respect for the court in which the
commencement or continuance of action/proceeding is sought to be
restrained — must be borne in mind;

(8) NIDHI PRAKASH VS. RAJNEESH VARMA ON 02.12.2013; DELHI
HIGH COURT CS(OS) 2386/2013, on the observations therein to the effect;

” The parties were married in India as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Plaintiff in the absence of a valid visa is not in a position to travel to
USA. Further the Court at Texas is a forum non-convenience to the Plaintiff.
In view thereof, I am of the considered opinion that the Plaintiff has made
out a prima facie case in her favour for grant of ad-interim ex-parte anti suit
injunction. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiff
and in case no injunction is granted, she will suffer irreparable loss.
Consequently the Defendant, his attorney, representatives etc. are restrained
from further proceeding with the petition filed before the Court of Harris

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28
County, Texas in Court File No. 201363296 till the next date of hearing.”

(9) VIKAS AGGARWAL VS. ANUBHA; MANU/SC/0316/2002
” 3. ……………..The learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court
passed an interim order on 5.11.1999 in the following terms:-

“For the present in the interest of justice, and since no
permanent prejudice is likely to be caused to the Defendants if
the hearing in divorce case pending in the Superior Court,
State of Connecticut, U.S.A. is deferred for a short period, I
restrain the Defendant from proceeding further in the Superior
Court, State at Connecticut, U.S.A. for a period of thirty days
from today.””

23.It has been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that in as much as the
marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant had taken place in India and
that the matrimonial home of the plaintiff and the defendant was in
India, and that the plaintiff was in U.K. presently not due to her own will
but because of the emotional black mail committed by the defendant on
her calling her to come to London and further attempts of mediation
having been effected between either side whereafter the plaintiff had
also been continuously harassed during the period that she had stayed
with the defendant and as a consequence of which she was now under
the protective coverage of High Commission of India and was also being
imparted treatment her stay at London is not because of her own choice.
It has thus been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the verdicts
relied upon on behalf of the plaintiff clearly state that the decree of
divorce, if any, granted by a foreign Court in relation to a marriage
performed in India according to Hindu rites and customs where the

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28
matrimonial home of the parties was in India, would be a nullity in the
eyes of law. It was also submitted on behalf of the plaintiff specifically
placing reliance on the verdict of this Court in
Padmini Hindupur v.
Abhijit S. Bellur; CS(OS) 2916/2014, an adjudications in relation to an
IA bearing No. 18648/2014 (u/O XXXIX Rule 12 of the CPC) , where
the plaintiff wife in that case had sought an anti-suit injunction against
the defendant her husband who had set a divorce proceedings at
Arlington, Virginia with specific reliance placed on behalf of the
plaintiff on the observations laid down in paragraphs 25, 26, 27, 28,29,
30,31 which read to the effect;

” 25. The principles and guidelines laid down by the courts for grant
of an anti-suit injunction were considered by the Supreme Court in
Modi Entertainment Networks (supra) Para 28 had delineated the
following principles which emerged as under:-

“28. From the above discussion the following principles
emerge:

(1) In exercising discretion to grant an anti-suit injunction the
court must be satisfied of the following aspects:-

(a) the defendant, against whom injunction is sought, is
amenable to the personal jurisdiction of the court;

(b) if the injunction is declined the ends of justice will be
defeated and injustice will be perpetuated; and

(c) the principle of comity — respect for the court in
which the commencement or continuance of
action/proceeding is sought to be restrained — must be
borne in mind;

(2) in a case where more forums than one are available, the
Court in exercise of its discretion to grant anti-suit injunction
will examine as to which is the appropriate forum (Forum
conveniens) having regard to the convenience of the parties
and may grant anti-suit injunction in regard to proceedings
which are oppressive or vexations or in a forum non-

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28
conveniens;

(3) Where jurisdiction of a court is invoked on the basis of
jurisdiction clause in a contract, the recitals therein in regard
to exclusive or nonexclusive jurisdiction of the court of choice
of the parties are not determinative but are relevant factors and
when a question arises as to the nature of jurisdiction agreed to
between the parties the court has to decide the same on a true
interpretation of the contract on the facts and in the
circumstances of each case;

(4) a court of natural jurisdiction will not normally grant anti-
suit injunction against a defendant before it where parties have
greed to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of a court
including a foreign court, a forum of their choice in regard to
the commencement or continuance of proceedings in the court
of choice, save in an exceptional case for good and sufficient
reasons, with a view to prevent injustice in circumstances such
as which permit a contracting party to be relieved of the burden
of the contract; or since the date of the contract the
circumstances or subsequent events have made it impossible for
the party seeking injunction to prosecute the case in the court
of choice because the essence of the jurisdiction of the court
does not exist or because of a vis major or force majeure and
the like;

(5) where parties have agreed, under a non- exclusive
jurisdiction clause, to approach a neutral foreign forum and be
governed by the law applicable to it for the resolution of their
disputes arising under the contract, ordinarily no anti- suit
injunction will be granted in regard to proceedings in such a
forum conveniens and favoured forum as it shall be presumed
that the parties have thought over their convenience and all
other relevant factors before submitting to non-exclusive
jurisdiction of the court of their choice which cannot be treated
just an alternative forum;

(6) a party to the contract containing jurisdiction clause cannot
normally be prevented from approaching the court of choice of
the parties as it would amount to aiding breach of the contract;
yet when one of the parties to the jurisdiction clause
approaches the court of choice in which exclusive or

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28
nonexclusive jurisdiction is created, the proceedings in that
court cannot per se be treated as vexatious or oppressive nor
can the court be said to be forum non-conveniens; and
(7) the burden of establishing that the forum of the choice is a
forum nonconveniens or the proceedings therein are oppressive
or vexatious would be on the party so contending to aver and
prove the same.

26. This case was dealing with a commercial arbitration where there
was a written contract between the parties. However, the principles
and discretion to be exercised by the Court while considering a
prayer for grant of an anti-suit injunction remain the same. One
aspect is that if the injunction is declined, the ends of justice would be
defeated and injustice would be perpetuated; another aspect is the
aspect of forum conveniens; in case there is more than one forum
available, the Court in the exercise of its discretion while granting an
anti-suit injunction will examine as to which is the most appropriate
forum (forum conveniens) having regard to the convenience of the
parties; it may grant anti-suit injunction in regard to proceedings
which are oppressive or vexatious or in a forum non-conveniens.

27. The Apex Court in Modi Entertainment Networks had reiterated
that the Courts in India like Court in England are courts of law and
equity. The principles governing the grant of anti-suit injunction
being essentially an equitable relief; the Courts in India have the
powers to issue anti-suit injunction to a party over whom it has
personal jurisdiction in an appropriate case; this is because the
Courts of equity exercise jurisdiction in personam; this power has to
be exercised sparingly where such an injunction is sought and if not
granted, it would amount to the defeat of ends of justice and injustice
would be perpetuated. This coupled with the fact that the Delhi Court
would be the Court of forum conveniens as admittedly the plaintiff has
never not even for single day resided in Maryland, USA and the fact
that even her two short periods of stay in USA and she in the last
period i.e. between 11.06.2013 to 03.08.2013 was met with non-
cooperation from the husband who had not even met her in that
period having disregarded all her communications; he having
surrendered the lease of their house on 3.6.2014 and having moved
on to a job without any information to the plaintiff and thereafter

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28
having set up a plea that he is a resident of Maryland only for the
purpose of obtaining a relief appears to be a litigation which is both
prejudicial and vexatious to the interest of the plaintiff.

28. The plaintiff has not submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the
Court at Maryland; she is a resident of Delhi; parties had moved
together to their matrimonial home in Arlington, Virginia. They never
stayed in Maryland; this is also not the argument of the learned
senior counsel for the defendant. It would be a forum of
inconvenience for the plaintiff to submit herself to the Court at
Maryland. She having lodged her protest by her communication dated
11.08.2013 which clearly finds mention in para 18 of the plaint, there
is also no suppression or concealment of facts as has been argued by
the learned senior counsel for the defendant. The plaintiff is entitled
to the equitable relief as prayed for and if the proceedings are
permitted to be continued in Maryland, it would be a proceeding
without hearing the plaintiff and would undoubtedly prejudice her
interest.

29. Nothing also prohibits the defendant from coming to India. At the
outset, all efforts were made for reconciliation and the parties were
asked to explore the possibility of settlement. Learned senior counsel
for the defendant had taken time to take instructions from his client as
to whether his client would be willing to come to India to mediate.
The answer was in the negative. Even if the defendant is under an H-1
Visa, it does not necessarily means that he is prevented from
travelling to India. This has been categorically put to the learned
senior counsel for the defendant to which there was no evident
answer.

30. List on 21.5.2015.

31. The plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for. Proceedings
before the Maryland Court at USA fixed for 27.02.2015 will be
deferred till further orders.”

24. On behalf of the defendant, though the written statement and reply
have not been filed, the learned senior counsel for the defendant sought
to distinguish the judgments relied upon on behalf of the plaintiff
submitting inter alia to the effect that the final relief sought for in the

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28
writ petition cannot be granted as an interim measure and that the grant
of an anti-suit injunction is not a matter of routine where the Courts have
concurrent jurisdiction in as much as the cases of injunction are basically
governed by the doctrine of equity, the Courts should be very cautious
and careful in granting an order for an anti-suit injunction which should
be granted with circumspection and not as a matter of routine as such
orders involve a Court infringing jurisdiction of another Court which is
not entertained very easily especially when it restraints the litigants from
instituting or continuing a case in a foreign Court and that even in terms
of
Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 an injunction ought not to
be granted to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding
pending at the institution of a suit for which the injunction is sought
unless such restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings
and that a foreign Court cannot be presumed to be exercising its
jurisdiction wrongly, and that in the circumstances of the instant case,
the proceedings at the Family Court at London cannot be said to be
oppressive or vexatious.

25. On behalf of the defendant it has further been submitted placing
reliance on the principles of anti-suit injunction defined in Modi
Entertainment Network And Ors. VS. W.S.G. Cricket PTE. LTD ;
MANU/SC/0039/2003, which principles were referred to in
Padmini
Hindupur V. Abhijit S. Bellur; CS(OS) 2916/2014, submitting to the
effect whilst placing reliance on paragraph 28 thereof to the effect:
(5) Where parties have agreed, under a non-exclusive jurisdiction
clause, to approach a neutral foreign forum and be governed by the
law applicable to it for the resolution of their disputes arising under
the contract, ordinarily no anti-suit injunction will be granted in

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28
regard to proceedings in such a forum conveniens and favoured
forum as it shall be presumed that the parties have thought over their
convenience and all other relevant factors before submitting to non-
exclusive jurisdiction of the court of their choice which cannot be
treated just an alternative forum.”

submitting thus to the effect that in exercise of its discretion to grant
anti-suit injunction the appropriate Forum (Forum Conveniens) having
regard to the convenience of the parties has to be considered and that
though the Court may grant an anti-suit injunction in regard to
proceedings which are oppressive or vexatious or in a Forum non-
conveniens, the burden of establishing that the forum of a choice is a
Forum non-conveniens or the proceedings therein are oppressive or
vexatious would be on the parties so contending to aver and it would be
for such party to prove the same.

26. It has been submitted on behalf of the defendant that in the instant
case, however, the applicant is presently residing in the United Kingdom
of her own choice and has restricted the defendant’s entry into India by
filing several complaints and also getting a Look Out Circular issued
since 14.2.2020 and that the actions of the plaintiff are clearly
oppressive to him are prejudicial and caused hardships to the defendant
who now has to seek Psychiatric help in order to continue living.

27. On behalf of the defendant, it has further been submitted that because
of the pandemic restrictions, monetary constraints, pending LOC arrest
and pending criminal proceedings he is unable to travel to India and if he
was compelled to do so, he would become jobless.

28. On behalf of the defendant it has been further submitted that the

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28
defendant had even provided hotel accommodation to the plaintiff at
London and that the plaintiff has also got the ILR VISA, i.e., a
Destitute Domestic Violence VISA and because of the same as per the
rules of the Government of U.K. the ILR status Indefinite Leave to
Remain is automatic and the plaintiff has already stayed beyond the
validity period qua which the counsel for the plaintiff submits that the
plaintiff had so continued to stay because of the medical treatment being
imparted to her in relation to which aspect it has been submitted on
behalf of the defendant that the continuous stay on the Indefinite Leave
status as a destitute, was a deliberate act of the plaintiff in order to obtain
permanent residency in U.K..

29. On behalf of the plaintiff, it was urged by the learned counsel for the
plaintiff that the bona fides of the plaintiff would be brought forth
through the factum that she had a return ticket to return to India and that
she had left Mumbai for Heathrow, London on 14.2.2021 and her return
ticket was scheduled for 25.2.2021 from Heathrow to reach Mumbai on
26.2.2021 which indicated her bona fides that she had no intent to
continue to reside in London qua which it was submitted on behalf of the
defendant that however, the plaintiff continued to so reside at London, in
relation to which it was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that she so
continued to reside because she was arrested qua which it was submitted
on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff was arrested only on 12th
March, 2021 in relation to which it was submitted by counsel for
plaintiff that the plaintiff continued to reside in London despite her
return ticket for the date 25.2.2021 in view of the attempts of the
settlement being conducted by the counsel of either side.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28

30. Apparently, thus in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the
presence of the applicant at London from 26.2.2021 at least till her date
of arrest on 12th March, 2021 has essentially to be termed to be willful of
her own accord. The factum that the plaintiff is presently being
provided the medical assistance at London and is also being provided the
accommodation and stay by ‘ Refuge’ at London under the aegis of the
Indian High Commission, apparently makes it apparent that in the facts
and circumstances of the instant case it cannot be contended by the
plaintiff that it would be inconvenient for her to attend the proceedings
in the London Court.

In the circumstances the application IA No.6603/2021 under Order
XXXIX Rule 12 of the CPC is declined.

Nothing stated herein shall however tantamount to an expression on
the merits or demerits of the case.

The matter be placed before the Hon’ble Roster Bench on 22.7.2021.

ANU MALHOTRA, J

JULY 15, 2021/SV

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing Date:17.07.2021
18:28

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation