Anti-suit injunction in foreign divorce proceedings requires oppressive litigation and grave injustice, not merely a different matrimonial ground.

An anti-suit injunction against foreign divorce proceedings is an equitable in personam remedy granted sparingly and in deference to comity of courts. The Court considered Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act and the governing requirements of personal jurisdiction, oppression or vexation in the foreign proceedings, and a clear showing that refusal of restraint would cause grave injustice. Although the respondent-wife was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Indian family court, the record did not establish that continuation of the foreign proceedings would defeat justice. The mere use of a matrimonial ground unavailable under the Hindu Marriage Act was insufficient to justify restraint, and the refusal to grant an injunction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts of the case, the appellant-husband was entitled to an anti-suit injunction restraining the respondent-wife from prosecuting divorce proceedings before the foreign court.

Analysis: Anti-suit injunction is an equitable relief that may be granted in personam, but only sparingly and with due regard to comity of courts. Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was considered, particularly clauses (a) and (b), along with the governing principles that the defendant must be subject to personal jurisdiction, that refusal of injunction must be shown to defeat justice, and that the foreign proceeding must be oppressive or vexatious. The Court found that the respondent-wife was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Indian family court, but the record did not show that continuation of the foreign proceedings would cause grave injustice to the appellant or that denial of injunction would perpetuate injustice. The mere fact that the foreign petition invoked a ground not available under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was held insufficient to warrant restraint, especially when the validity and governing law of the marriage dispute could be agitated before the foreign court.

Conclusion: The appellant-husband was not entitled to an anti-suit injunction, and the refusal to restrain the foreign proceedings was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: An anti-suit injunction restraining foreign proceedings will not be granted merely because the foreign forum may apply a different matrimonial ground; it requires proof of oppressive or vexatious litigation and a clear showing that refusal of injunction would cause grave injustice, consistently with comity of courts.

---