When a marriage spans two countries and litigation is launched in both, can an Indian court stop a spouse from pursuing a divorce abroad? Only rarely, the Supreme Court has held. An anti-suit injunction is not a routine order; it can be granted only where the foreign forum is oppressive, vexatious or plainly inconvenient. Since the couple had made their life in the United Kingdom, that was the natural forum, and the injunction against the wife’s UK divorce was rightly set aside.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has upheld a Calcutta High Court judgment that set aside an anti-suit injunction restraining a wife from prosecuting divorce proceedings before the Family Court in the United Kingdom, reiterating that such an injunction is an exceptional remedy and not a matter of routine [Mihir Prakash Bajoria v. Vidushi Jain Bajoria].
A judgment authored by Justice N.V. Anjaria (2026 INSC 1034) dismissed the husband’s appeal against the High Court’s order, holding that the vacation of the anti-suit injunction was “eminently just and legal”.
The dispute
The couple, married in Kolkata in 2018 under Hindu customs, had lived together in London, where the husband had been settled for years and the wife had gone as a student and become a habitual resident. After the relationship broke down, the wife instituted divorce proceedings before the UK Family Court on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The husband filed a suit at the Alipore trial court in India and obtained an interim anti-suit injunction restraining the wife from prosecuting the UK proceedings, or any similar proceedings before any foreign court. The Calcutta High Court set aside that injunction, and the husband appealed to the Supreme Court.
Anti-suit injunctions are exceptional
The Court explained that an anti-suit injunction does not stay the proceedings in the foreign court; it operates in personam, restraining the party before the Indian court from prosecuting or continuing the foreign proceedings. Because of its tendency to interfere with a foreign court’s exercise of jurisdiction, and its bearing on the comity of courts, such an injunction is not to be granted as a routine judicial exercise; the burden lies on the party seeking it to establish that the foreign forum is oppressive or vexatious, or is a forum non conveniens.
Relying on its earlier decisions, including Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd., the Court reiterated that courts should be cautious before restraining a party from pursuing proceedings abroad, since injudicious anti-suit injunctions can create jurisdictional conflict and undermine the comity of courts. The remedy exists to prevent a party from being vexed by oppressive or vexatious foreign litigation, not to deprive the other spouse of a legitimate forum.
The UK was the natural forum
Applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the Court held that the High Court was justified in finding the convenient forum to be the court in the UK. Both parties had, by settled residence, lived in the UK; the husband had resided there for many years, the wife was a habitual resident, and, although the marriage was solemnised in Kolkata, the couple had, before and after the marriage, resided in London, where the wife was living when the Indian suit was filed. Their prolonged matrimonial life had made London the habitual centre of their interests, with their matrimonial home and financial arrangements there, so the wife’s proceedings before the English court rested on substantial connecting factors and could not be branded oppressive or vexatious.
The Court also faulted the trial court for two further reasons. It had granted the injunction on the speculative and premature ground that the UK court would decree divorce on irretrievable breakdown, a matter yet to be established on evidence; and it had ignored that anti-suit injunctions should not ordinarily stall foreign proceedings that are still at an inchoate stage and have not culminated in a final decision. Restraining the UK proceedings mid-course, on an anticipated outcome, was a patent error.
ALSO READ: Marriage Continues Only On Paper Due To Prolonged Matrimonial Litigation: Supreme Court
What was, and was not, decided
The Court noted that, during the pendency of the appeal, the English court had passed a conditional divorce decree, in respect of which the Supreme Court had earlier granted a stay. It clarified, however, that the challenge before it was confined to the anti-suit injunction passed by the Alipore trial court, and that it had examined only the legality of that order and its vacation by the High Court. It expressed no opinion on the conditional decree or on the merits of the divorce, and left it open to either party to challenge any final orders of the UK Family Court, including the conditional decree, before the competent forum in accordance with law, clarifying that its observations would not influence any such proceedings.
Finding the High Court’s vacation of the injunction just and legal, the Court upheld it and dismissed the husband’s appeal.
Why it matters
With families increasingly spread across jurisdictions, matrimonial disputes are frequently litigated in more than one country, and the anti-suit injunction, an order restraining a party from pursuing litigation abroad, has become a recurring battleground. The judgment reaffirms that this is a power to be used sparingly. An Indian court does not sit in appeal over a foreign court’s jurisdiction; it can only restrain the party before it, and only where continuing the foreign proceedings would be oppressive or vexatious, or where the foreign court is not the convenient forum. Absent such a showing, granting the injunction risks jurisdictional conflict and offends the comity of courts.
The forum non conveniens analysis is where such cases are usually won or lost. Where a couple has built their matrimonial life abroad, their home, residence and financial interests there, the foreign court will ordinarily be the natural forum, and a spouse’s resort to it cannot be characterised as vexatious merely because the other spouse would prefer to litigate in India. The Court’s disapproval of injunctions founded on a speculative prediction of the foreign court’s outcome, and of interference with foreign proceedings still at an early stage, further narrows the circumstances in which an anti-suit injunction can properly issue.
For the parties, the decision settles only the fate of the anti-suit injunction, not the divorce itself. The Supreme Court was careful to confine its ruling to the legality of the trial court’s order, leaving the conditional decree and the substantive matrimonial disputes to be pursued in the appropriate forum. What the judgment establishes is the method: an anti-suit injunction is an exceptional, not a routine, remedy, and a party seeking to halt a spouse’s foreign proceedings must clear a high threshold before an Indian court will intervene.
Case Title: Mihir Prakash Bajoria v. Vidushi Jain Bajoria [Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026]
Bench: Judgment authored by Justice N.V. Anjaria, Supreme Court of India | Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1034
Status: Appeal dismissed. Calcutta High Court’s order vacating the anti-suit injunction against the wife’s UK divorce proceedings upheld; anti-suit injunction held to be an exceptional remedy requiring an oppressive/vexatious or forum non conveniens foreign forum. No opinion expressed on the merits of the divorce or the UK conditional decree.