The Supreme Court has held that an Indian court cannot restrain a spouse from pursuing divorce proceedings abroad merely because the foreign petition relies on a ground that is unavailable under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The possibility that a future foreign divorce decree may not be recognised in India is too speculative, the Court said, to justify stopping proceedings before that decree is passed.
The Bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria dismissed a husband’s appeal against a Calcutta High Court judgment that had lifted an injunction preventing his wife from pursuing divorce and financial relief proceedings in the United Kingdom. The judgment was delivered on September 22, 2026.
Buy Now: Supreme Court Judgments E-Magazine – 5 Month Combo (2026) (1st February – 30th June 2026)
The couple married in Kolkata in December 2018 according to Hindu customs and spent a substantial part of their married life in London. After they separated, the husband filed a divorce petition before a court at Alipore in September 2024. The wife filed divorce proceedings before a UK family court the following month and also sought interim financial relief.
The husband subsequently brought a separate suit in Alipore seeking to prevent the wife from continuing the UK proceedings. On November 1, 2025, the Alipore trial court granted an ex parte interim anti-suit injunction. It reasoned, among other things, that irretrievable breakdown of marriage was not a statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act and that a UK decree granted on that basis might not be enforceable in India.
The Calcutta High Court set aside the injunction on December 15, 2025. The husband challenged that decision before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court said Indian courts have the power to issue an anti-suit injunction against a person within their jurisdiction. But that power must be exercised sparingly, with regard to fairness and respect for the jurisdiction of courts in other countries. The party seeking the injunction must establish a proper basis, such as oppressive or vexatious foreign proceedings and the risk of irreparable harm.
In this case, the UK proceedings had not reached a final decision when the Alipore court granted the injunction. Questions concerning the UK court’s jurisdiction and the wife’s divorce claim were still to be determined. The Supreme Court held that the Indian trial court had acted prematurely by assuming both that the UK court would grant a divorce on the stated ground and that any resulting decree would lack effect in India.
The Bench also found substantial connections between the dispute and the UK. The parties had lived together in London for much of their married life, had a matrimonial home there and had financial arrangements in the country. Their marriage having taken place in India did not, by itself, make the wife’s UK proceedings a basis for an anti-suit injunction.
During the Supreme Court appeal, a UK court passed a conditional divorce order on June 17, 2026. The Supreme Court had issued an interim stay concerning steps pursuant to that order on July 30, 2026.
The Bench made clear that its present decision concerned the legality of the November 2025 Indian anti-suit injunction. It expressed no opinion on the conditional UK divorce order or on any future final order. Either party remains free to challenge an order that aggrieves them before the competent forum in accordance with law.
Upholding the Calcutta High Court’s decision to vacate the injunction, the Supreme Court dismissed the husband’s appeal.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: Missing Original Document Doesn’t Automatically Defeat Forgery Case: Supreme Court
