Anti-Suit in Injunction in matrimonial matters

The principles governing the grant of anti-suit injunction being essentially an equitable relief, the Courts in India has the powers to issue anti-suit injunction to a party over whom it has personal jurisdiction in an appropriate case because the Courts of equity exercise jurisdiction in personam. 

The present matter dealt with the claim of anti suit injunction sought by wife against her husband. The husband, i.e., the defendant challenged the suit on the ground that the Delhi Court has no territorial jurisdiction by placing reliance on Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as the parties were married at Bangalore and had never resided in Delhi. Their last residence together was in USA and merely because the wife (Plaintiff) was a resident of Delhi would not confer jurisdiction upon the Delhi Courts.

The Court observed that “Cause of action” has not been defined either in the Constitution or in the CPC. It is that bundle of essential facts which are necessary for the Plaintiff to prove before he could succeed. The cause of action forms the foundation of a suit. As further observed in the instant case, the plaintiff was abandoned by the husband and was forced to leave her home in USA and since then she has been living with her parents. However, there were no specific averments in the suit that she was suffering a threat in Delhi for the proceedings being initiated by her husband in USA but the entire reading of the plaint clarified this position as well. 

It was held, that cause of action had arisen in her favour in Delhi when she was forced to come back from USA to live with her parents in Delhi. The abandonment by her husband qua the plaintiff continued and was continuous right up to the date of the filing of the suit. As held further, even if pleadings in the suit are not clearly drafted, such a weakness would not stand in the way of the Plaintiff if she otherwise makes out a good case.

On the issue of wife whether to be held entitled to the relief prayed for by her i.e. the grant of an anti suit interim injunction, it was noted that Section 13 of the CPC deals with the recognition of a foreign judgment. It deals with the various alternatives under which a foreign decree may not be recognized by an Indian Court; until and unless, the foreign decree is in conformity with the public policy which is equity and good conscience, such a decree may not been recognized. The provision clearly says that a foreign judgment not been given on merits of the case will not be recognized by the Courts in India. Unless the party after service voluntarily and unconditionally submits himself/herself to the jurisdiction of the Court and contests the claim, or agrees to the passing of the decree with or without submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court it should not be considered to be a decision which was rendered on the merits of the case. The wife as per communication to Court in the USA was always aggrieved by the jurisdiction of the US Court and she had even lodged her protest at the very first opportunity. 

However, Court while considering a prayer for grant of an anti-suit injunction has to consider that if the injunction is declined, the ends of justice would be defeated and injustice would be perpetuated. Then, the Court should consider the issue 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. The Court may grant anti-suit injunction in regard to proceedings which are oppressive or vexatious or in a forum non-conveniens.

It was further held that the principles governing the grant of anti-suit injunction being essentially an equitable relief, the Courts in India has the powers to issue anti-suit injunction to a party over whom it has personal jurisdiction in an appropriate case because the Courts of equity exercise jurisdiction in personam. 

It was accordingly held that the present would be a forum of inconvenience for the wife to submit herself to the US Court. She having lodged her protest in regard to jurisdiction of US Court, there was no suppression or concealment of facts and thus she was entitled to the equitable relief as prayed for.

[Padmini Hindupur vs. Abhijit S. Bellur]
(Delhi HC, 24.02.2015)
((CS(OS) 2916/2014))